[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Front sway bar...I EFFING called it, LOL!!n Oldest Mustang trick in the book. Whenever one does a time like that you better believe that sway bar came off.

Man, does it get any better than this?

[Zodiac]

Number Member Date 60' 1/8 Mile ET and MPH 1/4 Mile ET and MPH Post #
1 Grease Monkey 83 5/10/2017 1.917 7.884 @ 90.88 MPH 12.101 @ 115.61 MPH 870
2 Racereadyfab 6/9/2017 1.839 7.828 @ 91.24 MPH 12.113 @ 114.95 MPH 947
3 SS2017 2/26/2017 1.923 7.940 @ 91.93 MPH 12.192 @ 116.15 MPH 715
4 MarkMc26 10/25/2017 1.896 7.994 @ 89.17 MPH 12.299 @ 115.71 MPH 1163
5 Beasley 9/30/2016 2.018 8.095 @ 90.19 MPH 12.316 @ 115.11 MPH 301
6 Cdflyer 4/3/2016 1.988 8.026 @ 90.76 MPH 12.324 @ 114.31 MPH 78
8 Johnny2343 5/8/2016 2.033 8.118 @ 90.03 MPH 12.353 @ 114.98 MPH 143
9 FRAXUM 10/26/2016 1.98 8.077 @ 92.06 MPH 12.354 @ 115.92 MPH 454
10 Racerxx61 12/2/2016 2.062 8.126 @ 92.32 MPH 12.364 @ 116.13 MPH 608
11 EXSSIVE 9/2/2016 1.91 8.049 @ 90.51 MPP 12.385 @ 112.90 MPH 275
12 DMcRacerSS 3/5/2016 2.07 8.138 @ 91.17 MPH 12.401 @ 113.92 MPH 57/58
13 Lucky Engineered 5/22/2016 2.057 8.219 @ 90.89 MPH 12.425 @ 109.78 MPH 147
14 jhempsrt4 9/23/2016 2.062 8.154 @ 90.84 MPH 12.455 @ 114.57 MPH 296
15 Racereadyfab 5/10/2017 2.151 8.238 @ 91.32 MPH 12.498 @ 115.71 MPH 869
16 pbm6gto 9/25/2017 2.12 8.253 @ 90.99 MPH 12.561 @ 116.03 MPH 1091
17 Nicul15 11/13/2016 2.275 8.306 @ 90.97 MPH 12.577 @ 116.02 MPH 508

None of these cars are stock. Edmunds test claimed 12.6. Gutted cars, secret tunes?

Am I doing it right?

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by Zodiac

Number Member Date 60' 1/8 Mile ET and MPH 1/4 Mile ET and MPH Post #
1 Grease Monkey 83 5/10/2017 1.917 7.884 @ 90.88 MPH 12.101 @ 115.61 MPH 870
2 Racereadyfab 6/9/2017 1.839 7.828 @ 91.24 MPH 12.113 @ 114.95 MPH 947
3 SS2017 2/26/2017 1.923 7.940 @ 91.93 MPH 12.192 @ 116.15 MPH 715
4 MarkMc26 10/25/2017 1.896 7.994 @ 89.17 MPH 12.299 @ 115.71 MPH 1163
5 Beasley 9/30/2016 2.018 8.095 @ 90.19 MPH 12.316 @ 115.11 MPH 301
6 Cdflyer 4/3/2016 1.988 8.026 @ 90.76 MPH 12.324 @ 114.31 MPH 78
8 Johnny2343 5/8/2016 2.033 8.118 @ 90.03 MPH 12.353 @ 114.98 MPH 143
9 FRAXUM 10/26/2016 1.98 8.077 @ 92.06 MPH 12.354 @ 115.92 MPH 454
10 Racerxx61 12/2/2016 2.062 8.126 @ 92.32 MPH 12.364 @ 116.13 MPH 608
11 EXSSIVE 9/2/2016 1.91 8.049 @ 90.51 MPP 12.385 @ 112.90 MPH 275
12 DMcRacerSS 3/5/2016 2.07 8.138 @ 91.17 MPH 12.401 @ 113.92 MPH 57/58
13 Lucky Engineered 5/22/2016 2.057 8.219 @ 90.89 MPH 12.425 @ 109.78 MPH 147
14 jhempsrt4 9/23/2016 2.062 8.154 @ 90.84 MPH 12.455 @ 114.57 MPH 296
15 Racereadyfab 5/10/2017 2.151 8.238 @ 91.32 MPH 12.498 @ 115.71 MPH 869
16 pbm6gto 9/25/2017 2.12 8.253 @ 90.99 MPH 12.561 @ 116.03 MPH 1091
17 Nicul15 11/13/2016 2.275 8.306 @ 90.97 MPH 12.577 @ 116.02 MPH 508

None of these cars are stock. Edmunds test claimed 12.6. Gutted cars, secret tunes?

Am I doing it right?

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by Zodiac

NumberMemberDate60' 1/8 Mile ET and MPH1/4 Mile ET and MPHPost #
1Grease Monkey 835/10/20171.9177.884 @ 90.88 MPH12.101 @ 115.61 MPH870
2Racereadyfab6/9/20171.8397.828 @ 91.24 MPH12.113 @ 114.95 MPH947
3SS20172/26/20171.9237.940 @ 91.93 MPH12.192 @ 116.15 MPH715
4MarkMc2610/25/20171.8967.994 @ 89.17 MPH12.299 @ 115.71 MPH1163
5Beasley9/30/20162.0188.095 @ 90.19 MPH12.316 @ 115.11 MPH301
6Cdflyer4/3/20161.9888.026 @ 90.76 MPH12.324 @ 114.31 MPH78
8Johnny23435/8/20162.0338.118 @ 90.03 MPH12.353 @ 114.98 MPH143
9FRAXUM10/26/20161.988.077 @ 92.06 MPH12.354 @ 115.92 MPH454
10Racerxx6112/2/20162.0628.126 @ 92.32 MPH12.364 @ 116.13 MPH608
11EXSSIVE9/2/20161.918.049 @ 90.51 MPP12.385 @ 112.90 MPH275
12DMcRacerSS3/5/20162.078.138 @ 91.17 MPH12.401 @ 113.92 MPH57/58
13Lucky Engineered5/22/20162.0578.219 @ 90.89 MPH12.425 @ 109.78 MPH147
14jhempsrt49/23/20162.0628.154 @ 90.84 MPH12.455 @ 114.57 MPH296
15Racereadyfab5/10/20172.1518.238 @ 91.32 MPH12.498 @ 115.71 MPH869
16pbm6gto9/25/20172.128.253 @ 90.99 MPH12.561 @ 116.03 MPH1091
17Nicul1511/13/20162.2758.306 @ 90.97 MPH12.577 @ 116.02 MPH508

None of these cars are stock. Edmunds test claimed 12.6. Gutted cars, secret tunes?

Am I doing it right?

If it's posted on the internet, it must be true!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[kttxz06]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Honestly, I don't know where you're getting your information. No one...and I mean no one thought this mid year re-fresh was going to be a game changer. It was a mid-year re-fresh after all. Everyone's hopes (or expectations) was that the upgrades would be enough to make it more competitive with the camaro...which it did.

This is basically the same chassis with some minor (or new in the case of magneride) suspension bits and a new DI engine and better 10 speed transmission that allows the coyote to stay in it's powerband.

The biggest thing I have noticed more than anything this thread is camaro people (who seem to desperately need to have the faster) car dismissing valid 1/4 mile times. The Ford guys aren't saying anything about the mustang being faster...only that (so far) the 1/4 mile times being laid down are absolutely comparable to the camaro.

Excuses so far:

Rented dragstrip
Cars must be stripped/not stock
Mustang drivers are pro drivers
Not all mustangs are capable..need special models
Auto transmissions cant chirp 1-2 shift...again, not stock.
Ford provided altered mustangs
Etc.

Stop it.

For the past year on the 'other forum'. They've been hyping it. YouTube comments. Hype, hype, and more hype. Then one guy comes out on a prepped track and runs a 12.2 with tire. Then the Mustang crowd goes wild!!!!!!! Well, reality sets in. Real world testing starts to come out and they realize, shit, it's just on par with the SS. At best.

Then it was, oh yea, 12.2 out the box stock. Just do a tune and tire and we'll be running down Zl1's. So, the narrative got even crazier.

This just makes it come full circle for us Camaro guys. Maybe I should put my video back up on YouTube.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And remember when I said there was no way Ford would build a GT to outperform a higher up model in the same MY? Yet you guys talked on and on about how Ford doesn't care and Shelby owners care more about the experience of owning a GT350 and performance doesn't matter and all the typical nonsense in the world. So guess what. WRONG again! It does not handle anywhere close to even the non-R GT350, it is not faster in a straight line...yet that price is awfully close.

I did a quick search for Edmunds and GT350 and didnt see any 1/4 performance for the 350 , only 0-60 of 4.6(same as GT) so if they did test it as faster it wasnt by much considering the GT does not trap far off the 350. And are you comparing a non-PP GT to a 350? nobody even in your fantasy world ever said a a non PP would match a 350 on a road course. The PP2 may only time will tell though

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Stop it.

For the past year on the 'other forum'. They've been hyping it. YouTube comments. Hype, hype, and more hype. Then one guy comes out on a prepped track and runs a 12.2 with tire. Then the Mustang crowd goes wild!!!!!!! Well, reality sets in. Real world testing starts to come out and they realize, shit, it's just on par with the SS. At best.

Then it was, oh yea, 12.2 out the box stock. Just do a tune and tire and we'll be running down Zl1's. So, the narrative got even crazier.

This just makes it come full circle for us Camaro guys. Maybe I should put my video back up on Youtube now. haha.

I've been on the other forum...they absolutely have not been "hyping" it. None are going "wild", they are just happy to be caught up to the competition. Hell, the vast majority don't even feel the new found performance is worth the upgrade from their current S550.

So far, there has been only a handfull of documented runs (at the dragstrip)...ranging from 11.8X to 12.3. Nearly every camaro fan on here dismisses the 11.8X and 12.0X runs and jumps straight to the 12.3 and new edmunds 12.6. Why is that do you think?

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Zodiac

Number Member Date 60' 1/8 Mile ET and MPH 1/4 Mile ET and MPH Post #
1 Grease Monkey 83 5/10/2017 1.917 7.884 @ 90.88 MPH 12.101 @ 115.61 MPH 870
2 Racereadyfab 6/9/2017 1.839 7.828 @ 91.24 MPH 12.113 @ 114.95 MPH 947
3 SS2017 2/26/2017 1.923 7.940 @ 91.93 MPH 12.192 @ 116.15 MPH 715
4 MarkMc26 10/25/2017 1.896 7.994 @ 89.17 MPH 12.299 @ 115.71 MPH 1163
5 Beasley 9/30/2016 2.018 8.095 @ 90.19 MPH 12.316 @ 115.11 MPH 301
6 Cdflyer 4/3/2016 1.988 8.026 @ 90.76 MPH 12.324 @ 114.31 MPH 78
8 Johnny2343 5/8/2016 2.033 8.118 @ 90.03 MPH 12.353 @ 114.98 MPH 143
9 FRAXUM 10/26/2016 1.98 8.077 @ 92.06 MPH 12.354 @ 115.92 MPH 454
10 Racerxx61 12/2/2016 2.062 8.126 @ 92.32 MPH 12.364 @ 116.13 MPH 608
11 EXSSIVE 9/2/2016 1.91 8.049 @ 90.51 MPP 12.385 @ 112.90 MPH 275
12 DMcRacerSS 3/5/2016 2.07 8.138 @ 91.17 MPH 12.401 @ 113.92 MPH 57/58
13 Lucky Engineered 5/22/2016 2.057 8.219 @ 90.89 MPH 12.425 @ 109.78 MPH 147
14 jhempsrt4 9/23/2016 2.062 8.154 @ 90.84 MPH 12.455 @ 114.57 MPH 296
15 Racereadyfab 5/10/2017 2.151 8.238 @ 91.32 MPH 12.498 @ 115.71 MPH 869
16 pbm6gto 9/25/2017 2.12 8.253 @ 90.99 MPH 12.561 @ 116.03 MPH 1091
17 Nicul15 11/13/2016 2.275 8.306 @ 90.97 MPH 12.577 @ 116.02 MPH 508

None of these cars are stock. Edmunds test claimed 12.6. Gutted cars, secret tunes?

Am I doing it right?

The point is same drivers same day same course conditions it couldn’t outrun a manual SS.

255s (come on that wheel package) and a auto couldnt out ET a manual SS on better 275. Both got screwed here in what they ran. This test wasn’t fair to either car

But then aren’t the tires on a PP better than standard SS tires ? Is that going to be mentioned if and when a PP car does better against an SS?

[newmoon]

I just have one question. Has any publication reviewed either a manual 6th Gen or 18 GT with all the fancy electronic driver aids and got a better time than M/T 12:30s for my now 4-yro Boss and it's monster 380 lbs of torque ��

[Zodiac]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

The point is same drivers same day same course conditions it couldn’t outrun a manual SS.

255s (come on that wheel package) and a auto couldnt out ET a manual SS on better 275. Both got screwed here in what they ran. This test wasn’t fair to either car

But then aren’t the tires on a PP better than standard SS tires ? Is that going to be mentioned if and when a PP car does better against an SS?

I don't care what either runs, but if edmunds is the only true spoken work of internet bench racing then that fast list is invalidated according to this thread.

[6spdhyperblue]

I'm the slowest one on that list and I haven't put a wrench to this car yet. Still running untuned for warranty, about a dozen Poland springs in the trunk. shit prep on the track.

Unfortunately I didn't have the time to run the car once this year

[jmackisback]

This is now a designated Mustang fan whining zone, please proceed with caution.

[Zodiac]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

I'm the slowest one on that list and I haven't put a wrench to this car yet. Still running untuned for warranty, about a dozen Poland springs in the trunk. shit prep on the track

My post was a joke, all in jest of the thread.

Although you are close to the almighty edmunds 12.6, so you're safe.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Zodiac

I don't care what either runs, but if edmunds is the only true spoken work of internet bench racing then that fast list is invalidated according to this thread.

They didn’t run on a drag strip with either car. So more of a real world test one could say

I’ve never made any claims you speak of

All I’ve ever said is a rental with great driving and conditions will produce above average results. Anyone who doesn’t know that is ignorant or a fanboy