[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by rocket403

I had traded my Daily to get the Challenger so I had 5 in the car many times in the time I have had it, my wife with the 3 kids on many trips and driving to hockey with the family with one of kids that played.
When I got the car the oldest was 16 and over 6' and the youngest was 8.

I have since picked up a Ram so now the Challenger is just a summer ride.

I have found that the trunk is only big enough for the hockey bag the goalie pads and the stick end up in the back seat, try that with the other 2

I have a large duffle bag that I use when I go on vacations. I believe it is 40" and it fits a lot of stuff I need and don't need, lol!! It does not fit in my ZL1 at all. In fact my last one was a 36 incher and that did not fit. But it fits in the trunk of my Hellcat. I now use my SUV when I go away so I have no problems with it fitting. However if it was myself and 2 others going away somewhere then I doubt even the HC would be comfortable. Among the 3 tho it is clearly the best by far.

Originally Posted by shaffe

I agree, I am very curious to find out as well. I would think we would find out how stable it is once it's reviewed. And then we can go from there. But to just toss out that they can't afford it or they cut corners I don't think is fair because we have nothing to go by.

If you want to say not stable because the chassis isn't as good or whatever thats fine, I won't because I don't know enough about it to say so.

Like you I am very curious to find out the why.


And I will be right there with you saying it was a rush job/hack job if we find out the reason is something you are alluding too. Until the car is out and reviewed and people can form opinions after driving it I will try and err on the side of optimism.

Well Ford is never gonna admit something like that. I mean if they said they had to do it to keep the costs down so they could price it in line with what their core buyers will pay then that is fine. And I'm thinking that is what it amounts to. So I won't knock them too hard for that. But it's just a shame if they go to all these cost saving measures to keep the car affordable just for the dealerships work the price up to what the car would have been if they didn't cut costs. So in a way you'll be paying for all the extra stuff without ever getting it. It isn't Ford's fault but it is still a factor. But anyway, if they went cheap for those purposes then fine. GM does it, FCA does it, all manufacturers do it. If they cut costs because they just wanted to cheap out on the car then that is messed up.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I agree, I am very curious to find out as well. I would think we would find out how stable it is once it's reviewed. And then we can go from there. But to just toss out that they can't afford it or they cut corners I don't think is fair because we have nothing to go by.

If you want to say not stable because the chassis isn't as good or whatever thats fine, I won't because I don't know enough about it to say so.

Like you I am very curious to find out the why.


And I will be right there with you saying it was a rush job/hack job if we find out the reason is something you are alluding too. Until the car is out and reviewed and people can form opinions after driving it I will try and err on the side of optimism.

For a 700+ horsepower high performance car to be limited at 180 makes me think it has too much lift and not enough time was spent in the wind tunnel.

The concerning thing is it seems like once again the S550 has fallen short of expectations. 7th gen cant come fast enough for Ford.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

For a 700+ horsepower high performance car to be limited at 180 makes me think it has too much lift and not enough time was spent in the wind tunnel.

The concerning thing is it seems like once again the S550 has fallen short of expectations. 7th gen cant come fast enough for Ford.

The problems will persist in the 7th Gen if they've been spending all this time trying to correct issues with the current Gen. That is why I appreciate what GM does. They build the car the right way from the start and the move on to the next thing. At this point GM has probably been working on the 7th Gen for a good few years while Ford is still trying to get their shit together with the current Gen.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

For a 700+ horsepower high performance car to be limited at 180 makes me think it has too much lift and not enough time was spent in the wind tunnel.

The concerning thing is it seems like once again the S550 has fallen short of expectations. 7th gen cant come fast enough for Ford.

Ford said the GT500 will produce 550 lbs of downforce from the GT4 rear wing alone at 180 mph. That's in addition to downforce produced by the front aero bits and splitter. It also has that huge cut out on the hood which helps reduce lift significantly.

From "Automobile mag": Ford stated its “designers, powertrain and aerodynamics engineers functioned as a virtual race team to test hundreds of designs both digitally and physically.” As to the latter, the company touts real-world racetrack testing of the GT500 at Virginia International Raceway, NOLA Motorsports Park near New Orleans, and GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan.....Ford Performance says more than 500 3D-printed cooling and aero designs were analyzed.

And I'm sure they did even more iterations with computational fluid dynamics than real 3D models. So, it's likely not due to a lack of effort or aerodynamics short sighted-ness.

I think it simply is because they didn't test it above 180 mph. Unknowns at higher speeds. Rather than spend the money to test and develop that extra mph for something that will nearly never happen, they left it at that cap to help keep the MSRP down a bit. I, for one, wish they would have gone up at minimum to 190 mph. It's obviously producing a lot of downforce at 180 mph, so I don't think stability or lift is the issue.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

The problems will persist in the 7th Gen if they've been spending all this time trying to correct issues with the current Gen. That is why I appreciate what GM does. They build the car the right way from the start and the move on to the next thing. At this point GM has probably been working on the 7th Gen for a good few years while Ford is still trying to get their shit together with the current Gen.

GM has the advantage of Cadillac and other cars that share the chassis with the Camaro. A definite advantage toward Chevy vs. Ford, which, as far as I know the Mustang doesn't share its chassis with any other cars (I could be wrong but I can't think of any off the top of my head). Wasn't the Alpha chassis under development in something like 2009? They've had a decade to perfect it (7 years when the 6th Gen Camaro came out).

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by newmoon

And the A8 and A10 SS has been getting its a!! handed to it since June/2017 your point?

Absolutely false statement here.

The 2018 A10 Coyote closed the gap, but the SS truthfully still has a small edge over them. So your claim of the SS "getting it's a!! handed to it" is a blatant lie. The 2018 Mustang is actually SLOWER than the Camaro by a little bit, not even truly equal yet, let alone substantially quicker like you are falsely claiming. If you want to see what "getting it's a!! handed to it" really looks like, then just compare the 2015-2017 Coyotes to the SS, as the SS crushes those things by 6 tenths easily. Now THAT is the kind of loss that's worthy of calling "getting it's a!! handed to it".

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Ford said the GT500 will produce 550 lbs of downforce from the GT4 rear wing alone at 180 mph. That's in addition to downforce produced by the front aero bits and splitter. It also has that huge cut out on the hood which helps reduce lift significantly.

From "Automobile mag": Ford stated its “designers, powertrain and aerodynamics engineers functioned as a virtual race team to test hundreds of designs both digitally and physically.” As to the latter, the company touts real-world racetrack testing of the GT500 at Virginia International Raceway, NOLA Motorsports Park near New Orleans, and GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan.....Ford Performance says more than 500 3D-printed cooling and aero designs were analyzed.

And I'm sure they did even more iterations with computational fluid dynamics than real 3D models. So, it's likely not due to a lack of effort or aerodynamics short sighted-ness.

I think it simply is because they didn't test it above 180 mph. Unknowns at higher speeds. Rather than spend the money to test and develop that extra mph for something that will nearly never happen, they left it at that cap to help keep the MSRP down a bit. I, for one, wish they would have gone up at minimum to 190 mph. It's obviously producing a lot of downforce at 180 mph, so I don't think stability or lift is the issue.

I'm skeptical. This is a generation for Ford where they introduced 2 track cars without coolers. The GT350 they fixed after a lawsuit. The PP2 could have been a cool option to compete with a 1LE but instead it is a one lap "canyon carver".

Ford spent hours and hours on the designing the aerodynamic properties of the S550 and yet the 15-17 hoods started shaking at around 90mph. The current PP1 even feels unstable especially compared to the SS.

In short what I am saying is that this a red flag on a halo performance car. I'll wait until its tested and it could be the limiter isnt needed. We will see.

[rocket403]

Mustang and Camaro are very close in every category but braking 105' (Camaro) to 118' (Mustang) would be a drivers race in the 1/4

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by rocket403

Mustang and Camaro are very close in every category but braking 105' (Camaro) to 118' (Mustang) would be a drivers race in the 1/4

IIRC. The Mustang had the A10. The Camaro was a M6.

You see ...Edmund's tested a GT. Not the GT*

* GT, A10, PP, Michelin PS, 3.55 in drag race mode

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

Absolutely false statement here.

The 2018 A10 Coyote closed the gap, but the SS truthfully still has a small edge over them. So your claim of the SS "getting it's a!! handed to it" is a blatant lie. The 2018 Mustang is actually SLOWER than the Camaro by a little bit, not even truly equal yet, let alone substantially quicker like you are falsely claiming. If you want to see what "getting it's a!! handed to it" really looks like, then just compare the 2015-2017 Coyotes to the SS, as the SS crushes those things by 6 tenths easily. Now THAT is the kind of loss that's worthy of calling "getting it's a!! handed to it".

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:

2018 Mustang GT A10:
11.83 @ 119.5 mph (Hot Rod mag stock car on prepped drag strip)
11.9 @ 119 mph 0-60 in 3.9 (Cars.com)
12.1 @ 120 mph and 0-60 in 3.8 (Car and Driver)
12.1 @ 118.8 mph and 0-60 in 3.9 (Motor Trend)
Average: 11.98 @ 119.3 mph


Camaro SS 6th gen:
12.2 @ 118 mph and 0-60 in 3.9 (A10, Car and Driver)
12.3 @ 116 mph and 0-60 in 3.9 (A8 SS Car and Driver)
12.4 @ 116 mph and 0-60 in 4.1 (M6 1LE Car and Driver)
12.5 @ 115 mph and 0-60 in 4.1 (M6 1LE Motor Trend)
Average auto: 12.25 @ 117 mph
Average M6: 12.45 @ 115.5 mph

FYI The M6 GT ran 12.6 @ 115 mph in the same motor trend test as the M6 above. We all know the M6 is slower than the A10 so that's nothing new.

The trap speeds should tell you everything. The fastest SS trap speed is not even in the top 4 of the Mustang, considering #4 of the GT was 118.8 mph.

The A10 SS has "closed the gap" as you say, but still accelerates slower than the A10 GT. That said, it is no slouch. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds is supercar fast 20 years ago.

[newmoon]

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:

2018 Mustang GT A10:
11.83 @ 119.5 mph (Hot Rod mag stock car on prepped drag strip)
11.9 @ 119 mph 0-60 in 3.9 (Cars.com)
12.1 @ 120 mph and 0-60 in 3.8 (Car and Driver)
12.1 @ 118.8 mph and 0-60 in 3.9 (Motor Trend)
Average: 11.98 @ 119.3 mph


Camaro SS 6th gen:
12.2 @ 118 mph and 0-60 in 3.9 (A10, Car and Driver)
12.3 @ 116 mph and 0-60 in 3.9 (A8 SS Car and Driver)
12.4 @ 116 mph and 0-60 in 4.1 (M6 1LE Car and Driver)
12.5 @ 115 mph and 0-60 in 4.1 (M6 1LE Motor Trend)
Average auto: 12.25 @ 117 mph
Average M6: 12.45 @ 115.5 mph

FYI The M6 GT ran 12.6 @ 115 mph in the same motor trend test as the M6 above. We all know the M6 is slower than the A10 so that's nothing new.

The trap speeds should tell you everything. The fastest SS trap speed is not even in the top 4 of the Mustang, considering #4 of the GT was 118.8 mph.

The A10 SS has "closed the gap" as you say, but still accelerates slower than the A10 GT. That said, it is no slouch. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds is supercar fast 20 years ago.

3rd Place is hard for these guys to accept, they had a few good years but that is over.

Just read that a brand new Challenger 1320 ran a 7.45 @ 93-mph in the 1/8, no active transbrake as it does't have 500 miles on it.

[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by newmoon

3rd Place is hard for these guys to accept, they had a few good years but that is over.

Just read that a brand new Challenger 1320 ran a 7.45 @ 93-mph in the 1/8, no active transbrake as it does't have 500 miles on it.

Yeah that run is over in the other thread. Curious to see what the 1320 can do this fall.

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

Yeah that run is over in the other thread. Curious to see what the 1320 can do this fall.

That would have been a high 11:60s - low 11:70s pass, for pass number 1 that I have seen posted. You have to figure there is an 11:50s in the car bone stock.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by newmoon

3rd Place is hard for these guys to accept, they had a few good years but that is over.

Just read that a brand new Challenger 1320 ran a 7.45 @ 93-mph in the 1/8, no active transbrake as it does't have 500 miles on it.

Your comment reeks of someone who is desperately trying to trigger someone. So let me correct you. The SS is not the slowest and will never be the slowest of the V8 powered Muscle Cars or Pony Cars or whatever you wanna call them so long as Dodge has that 5.7 in the Chally/Charger. Dodge holds the title as the "slowest". Second would have to go to Ford for the M6 GT which is stuck in the mid to high 12 sec range. The SS is in the middle between fastest and slowest.

And again, you keep saying that we here find it hard to accept. That is a flat out lie considering that most of us said way back before the 18 GT was released that we would not be surprised if it was faster. And most of us said that given all the extensive alterations the car needed that it damn well should be faster. So where do you get that we find it hard to accept? We all here know GM's forte. They build it the right way, fast and competitive enough that it can remain untouched for 6 years, and then they move on to the next project. Ford builds things like shit and then has to keep updating it which leaves them very little time to make the next cars, like the GT500, capable of doing what all of it's competitors can do, like going 200 MPH and being stable. None of us cares.

What is remarkable is that the SS and ZL1 showed up, kicked the snot out of everyone, and several years later the competition needed heavy renditions and new models (Widebody, Redeye, PP2, 3rd Gen Coyote engine, 1320, Bullitt, GT500) while the SS and ZL1 has not needed to change at all. And you're still getting the best performance for the buck and a car that is not a one hit wonder and can do what it does around a track indefinitely because it has the appropriate parts to keep it cool and stable. GM built a car that was 2020 fast way back in 2016. Ford is still stuck in 2013 since the GT500 is slower now than it was then. So really, what is it that you think we can't accept. Most of us said welcome to the party after the GT finally was faster than high 12s like the competition had been doing for years at that point.