The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by EnvyTerra

^pretty horrible numbers.

Convertibles are heavier and let's not forget the importance of the driver.

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by EnvyTerra

^pretty horrible numbers.

How do you come to that expert conclusion? What was the DA? What were similar powered cars running that same night?

[cmiller8006]

Yes driver is huge. The only way to really see which would be faster is one guy (that is a good driver) in both cars for one day at the track. Because no matter what there is no two drivers alike.

[cmiller8006]

Originally Posted by Sleestack

How do you come to that expert conclusion? What was the DA? What were similar powered cars running that same night?

DA is not going to make a full second differance.

[BlackieRay]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

Convertibles are heavier and let's not forget the importance of the driver.

Agree. The convertible will add 3-500lbs. I don't see those times as that bad really, but realistically I don't expect the car to live up to the hype.

[viper,redz]

It was hot last night not the best time to make passes . To compare my wife went 13.1 last night with her airraid only car . The cars are fast this post was not to down the stang just to show real world results not shop results .

[Sleestack]

Originally Posted by cmiller8006

DA is not going to make a full second differance.

13.3 at 106? What, you expected 12.3 everytime they line up? Armchair race much?

Originally Posted by viper,redz

It was hot last night not the best time to make passes . To compare my wife went 13.1 last night with her airraid only car . The cars are fast this post was not to down the stang just to show real world results not shop results .

Yep, the best evaluation criteria is same track, same day, multiple passes. If you ran at SAR, the DA was likely over 2500 since Texas weather sucks eggs in the summer months. Thanks for posting up....

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

The test you are referring to (C&D) had the mustang running 0-100 almost a full second (.8x) slower than most of the other tests and it also happens to be the slowest 1/4 and trap speed of any of the magazine tests for the mustang and one of the fastest of any magazine tests for the camaro... So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if evil twin said something.

i dont really feel like commenting until i see the numbers and more than just the C&D test.all i come up with is the Motor Trend test where the Mustang was half a second faster 0-100mph.

but reguardless, who races to 120+? those speeds are not attainable in stock form in either car at the track

[mrcowboy]

My simple question is; With the addition of the 412 hp GT, does it now make more sense to simply buy a GT and add a blower instead of buying a shelby? I'm thinking of the 5.0 vs the 5.3...

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by mrcowboy

My simple question is; With the addition of the 412 hp GT, does it now make more sense to simply buy a GT and add a blower instead of buying a shelby? I'm thinking of the 5.0 vs the 5.3...

i think it depends on what power levels youre trying to achieve. with better pistons and rods, the supercharged 5.0 engine will generate more power than the GT500's 5.4 mod for mod. But we dont know that for sure, but the headflow on the 5.0 might be enough to make up for its lack of displacement. Without those upgrades, you can easily make more power than a STOCK GT500 but will hit the limit of the rods i think.

[cmiller8006]

[QUOTE=Sleestack;1978845]13.3 at 106? What, you expected 12.3 everytime they line up? Armchair race much?

Nope, I am actually at the track every week. I speak of experiance and was refering to the 13.6 and 13.9 run. What has the mustang done so far? 12.6 and been out for two or three months.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by mrcowboy

My simple question is; With the addition of the 412 hp GT, does it now make more sense to simply buy a GT and add a blower instead of buying a shelby? I'm thinking of the 5.0 vs the 5.3...

Depends.

You are going to see a 550-600hp limit without internal mods on the 5.0.

With the Gt500 the limit is FAR higher as the internals are better.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by fazm

comparing different magazines running different cars, on different days isnt a good comparison

The cars were tested on the same day by the same mag in the 0-130 test. 1.8 seconds difference 0-130. In other words...100's of feet.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

i dont really feel like commenting until i see the numbers and more than just the C&D test.all i come up with is the Motor Trend test where the Mustang was half a second faster 0-100mph.

but reguardless, who races to 120+? those speeds are not attainable in stock form in either car at the track

Yep...the motor trend test where they nearly matched what Evan Smith could do in a new GT. He only ran a 12.69.

It is obvious the motor trend test got every last ounce from the GT (for a mag review). But yet they ran .2 tenths slower in the camaro than what they have done before.

But then yet again the Car and Driver test is skewed toward the camaro.

All I am saying is that it would be pretty hard for them to be off by almost 2 seconds. How hard is it to hold the gas pedal to the floor after the car is shifted into 4th or 5th gear (depending on which car) It is a safe bet to say the camaro may have a slight advantage to 130mph. Even in the motor trend video you can see the camaro gaining ground approaching the 1/4 mile mark. (which btw the camaro ran a 12.9 in that run to the stangs 12.8...but they decided not to publish that)

And who races to 130?....most street races on the highway go further than a 1/4 mile. And most races are from a roll. Usually 120-135 from my experience. 98% of bragging rights with these cars will be earned via highway street races.