The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Sax1031]

Wait is he saying that even when they compared the SS vs GT in that article they ran the cars at different times of the day?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by jnm2003

I DEFINITELY give both cars credit!! I love my 2010 SS! I dont care as much for buying the first year of new production camaros when gm designed them while they were going bankrupt! Theres alot on this car that i think they halfassed! But overall I wouldnt trade it for anything! Ford has done awesome with their mustang productions every year and i give them way more credit!

BUT i do give both of them credit! I have at least 10 friends with mustangs and a few that have 2010s! With a few bolt ons and radials two of them run low 12s high 11s. With a little nitrous one of them run 11.0 to 11.2 all day long but yea i know that is with NITROUS. BUT anyways they are a couple of the fastest bolt on street cars at the street races down here and at the track. I know i wont line up to either one of them and i run 12.64 with a Few bolt ons.
My SS went 12.94 @ 110 at one track in Louisiana and 12.82 110 at another ALMOST bone stock with only axle back borla mufflers. Thats what 2 hp gain if u argue it.. which i dont think it was any hp! and maybe 10 lbs lighter. I KNOW that all the times ive been to either track down here i havnt seen a stock mustang (my friends or others) run beat a 12.90.
Another friend ran 12.65 down here with his SS BONE STOCK. SO MUSTANG LOVERS quit hating! I appreciate both cars and seen alot of both run at the track. So im comparing BOTH mustangs and camaros, on the SAME tracks, same altitude, same drivers run both cars. Same outcome with the mustangs being low 13s stock.
Y even bicker over a post about someones ratings of both cars and especially a mustang lover on a camaro forum? Y even waste ur time. I feel like i wasted mine typing this but i got bored. Not bored enough to go to mustang forums runnin my mouth!

Well no shit you haven't seen one do it, the car we're talking about isn't even out yet. NONE of us have seen them run PERIOD.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Wait is he saying that even when they compared the SS vs GT in that article they ran the cars at different times of the day?

I certainly don't imagine so, there's lots of side-by-side pictures.

[ULTRAZLS1]

The blue mustang that ran a 13.0 @ 110.6 did not run on the same day as the camaro and all season tire GT.

Besides the wording in my opinion...the fact that the initial comparison blue GT ran a 13.0 @ 110.6...they have to be referring to the same car unless they ran the same exact times on both days...which I thought very unlikely.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I don't know. The weird thing is this:

http://blogs.musclemustangfastfords....ive/index.html



That is from Evan Smith's blog on March 23rd.

But nothing else has come out since then about him driving the 2011 GT.

I have heard a rumor that he matched 2003 Cobra time he got but nowhere near what I would call a reliable source.

I would like to see Evan Smith do a SS vs GT test. Preferably a GT with the brembo brake package(mainly for the tires) and gear option. He would probably get the best printed times for both the SS and the GT.

Well...If even the lower dyno to date of 37Xrwhp is correct, I wouldn't be surprised. That's just about what a stock 03-04 cobra puts down and the cars weigh about the same, but the '11 GT has the advantage of a solid rear axle. It's very possible. If the 12.7 from motortrend wasn't some fluke, it's probably about as fast as the drivers at motortrend ever got the cobra.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Well...If even the lower dyno to date of 37Xrwhp is correct, I wouldn't be surprised. That's just about what a stock 03-04 cobra puts down and the cars weigh about the same, but the '11 GT has the advantage of a solid rear axle. It's very possible.

If the 2011 GT averages 365-380rwhp in stock form that will be pretty amazing to me.

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Please don't compare an uncorrected hero run to a magazine time. If you want to compare hero runs, wait 6 months for a broken in 5.0 to run in perfect conditions by a driver who has learned how to get the best possible time out of it. Don't use a magaizne time.

that is the answer man. i know fully well my car will get faster and faster as it loosens up.just like every other car in the world.

[DeathChill]

So, I think we've established that in all likelihood the blue GT was not run on the same day as the SS.

EDIT: I mean logically, why in the hell would they have the blue GT just sitting in the back, take no pictures of it, not mention any stats about it and test it silently alongside the SS only mentioning the 1/4 mile time in passing, which just so happens to perfectly match the previous numbers they ran with the GT. Come on, you'd have to really be hoping beyond hope.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by chevymuscle311

It is becoming more and more suspect with every other publication that is 3, 4 or 5 tenths off from it. I am not saying they didn't run it, just seems a little fishy that there is such a gap between that run and all the other publications. May have had a "special" tune, which makes a lot of sense considering it supposedly dynoed around like 435hp. Seems a little stupid to underrate it at 412 when the SS and SRT8 at 426.

As for your jab at PM, it is a repuatable magazine. As far as I know they have never rated a Miata over a ZR-1 vette.

this is the same dyno that spit out 385RWHP on a stock 405hp Z06 and OVER 500RWHP on a stock 540hp GT500. Obviously this must be a texas dyno or one imported from there because the numbers it spits out seem happier than most. The trap speeds indicate the 412hp is accurate based on its curb weight.

[Sax1031]

To be fair Evil Twin a 2010 540hp GT500 dynoed 502rwhp on a different dyno when Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords tested one.

[DeathChill]

Everyone got silent and now I am bored. Come back syr74, at least there was some damn debate!

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Low 13's is garbage? none of the magazines have gotten a Camaro in the 12's yet. Low 13's is NOT Garbage, LS1 Camaros averaged mid to lowish 13's.....

anywho, do you have any video of all these stock Camaros in the 12's??? im not saying it aint possible but its not THAT common either. Theres how many thousands of members here and its been done 8 times.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Wait is he saying that even when they compared the SS vs GT in that article they ran the cars at different times of the day?

Yes, the GT and SS were ran at different times of the day. The SS had the benefit of ever so slightly better weather. It's not much, but it's not like they ran these cars next to each other at a real track. They used their expensive GTechs, swapping them from one car to the other.

And, on a side note, I think it's stupid that they round their track times. They should post their 60 ft. times and shift points too.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

wow was that post for reals??? Low 13's is garbage? none of the magazines have gotten a Camaro in the 12's yet. Low 13's is NOT Garbage, LS1 Camaros averaged mid to lowish 13's.....

anywho, do you have any video of all these stock Camaros in the 12's??? im not saying it aint possible but its not THAT common either. Theres how many thousands of members here and its been done 8 times.

Both Hot Rod and Motor Trend got the SS into the 12's.