The 2011+ Mustang Thread - Page 295

big hammer · 04-28-2010, 10:41 PM

conditions aren't going to get much better for running high trap speeds. looks like this is it.

Sax1031 · 04-28-2010, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big hammer

conditions aren't going to get much better for running high trap speeds. looks like this is it.

Horrible track prep + bad wheel hop can kill your et and mph.

Sax1031 · 04-28-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by assasinator

im so close to cancelling and buying the caddy or jag its not funny. at least they have what is advertised.

its liable to dyno VERY low on their dyno if they load it. 335 or so. 355-365 on a dynojet.

Cancel it then.

From the way you sound the GT would never satisfy you anyways.

Unfair · 04-28-2010, 10:48 PM

Some guy is going to cancel an order for a car (any car for that matter) because of what one person ran in it? LMAO!

wbt · 04-28-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Horrible track prep + bad wheel hop can kill your et and mph.

Not going to impact MPH unless you are wheel hopping down past the 1/8th mile.....

Sax1031 · 04-28-2010, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbt

Not going to impact MPH unless you are wheel hopping down past the 1/8th mile.....

Really depends on how bad the wheel hop and track prep was.

Those two things will most certainly hurt your mph on the drag strip though. Probably not much but every little bit helps.

ULTRAZLS1 · 04-28-2010, 11:06 PM

Dude...what did you expect? Everyone to go out and rip mid 12's in their sleep? This isnt a C6 LS3 contender.

I think the numbers are just fine...the trap was in the correct range...he obviously had some traction issues. It is going to run more or less in range with the camaro given its trap speeds. DRIVER WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE CARS...

assasinator · 04-28-2010, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unfair

Some guy is going to cancel an order for a car (any car for that matter) because of what one person ran in it? LMAO!

no its a trend.

DeathChill · 04-28-2010, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Dude...what did you expect? Everyone to go out and rip mid 12's in their sleep? This isnt a C6 LS3 contender.

I think the numbers are just fine...the trap was in the correct range...he obviously had some traction issues. It is going to run more or less in range with the camaro given its trap speeds. DRIVER WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE CARS...

Do you find it odd that Camaro guys are trying to calm a guy down about how he shouldn't cancel his Mustang order?

*Mr. Wyndham* · 04-28-2010, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Do you find it odd that Camaro guys are trying to calm a guy down about how he shouldn't cancel his Mustang order?

I find it odd the frequency these Mustang-related discussions are happening on this site...very odd.

It reminds me of this rash I used to have....

fazm · 04-28-2010, 11:25 PM

2.10 60'

room for improvement, but not a ton. im sure 1.9s will be possible with practice

remember car had 70 miles on it, no cooldown

big hammer · 04-28-2010, 11:26 PM

60' was 2.1

average. not great or terrible.

DeathChill · 04-28-2010, 11:37 PM

So how much improvement will a better 60' bring? 2.0-1.9 60' would improve times by approximately how much?

Sax1031 · 04-28-2010, 11:40 PM

Yep the 2.10 60ft would be average.

If you can squeak a mid-to-low 1.9 60ft on the stock tires the car will run into the 12s in stock form.

And this car was picked up and drove to the drag strip. A little break in will see a jump in hp, albeit probably small.

View Poll Results: .
Camaro	0	0%
Mustang	0	0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

04-28-2010, 10:41 PM	#4117
big hammer Drives: 2002 ws6 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: manitoba Posts: 1,202	conditions aren't going to get much better for running high trap speeds. looks like this is it. __________________ Bolt on 2002 ls1 Trans am--- 11.5 @ 121 (1.72) 2000 da

04-28-2010, 11:26 PM	#4128
big hammer Drives: 2002 ws6 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: manitoba Posts: 1,202	60' was 2.1 average. not great or terrible. __________________ Bolt on 2002 ls1 Trans am--- 11.5 @ 121 (1.72) 2000 da

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Camaro VS Mustang Mega Thread	Beau Tie	Chevy Camaro vs...	3644	03-09-2012 08:45 PM
Gran Turismo 5... No Camaro?	5thGenOwner	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	111	12-06-2011 11:06 AM
Official 2011 Mustang GT info released	nester7929	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	81	12-28-2009 04:13 PM

04-28-2010, 10:48 PM	#4120
Unfair Banned Drives: 2001 Camaro SS Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 754	Some guy is going to cancel an order for a car (any car for that matter) because of what one person ran in it? LMAO!

04-28-2010, 11:06 PM	#4123
ULTRAZLS1 Drives: 14 Silverado LTZ Z71, 16 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jackson, Michigan Posts: 4,418	Dude...what did you expect? Everyone to go out and rip mid 12's in their sleep? This isnt a C6 LS3 contender. I think the numbers are just fine...the trap was in the correct range...he obviously had some traction issues. It is going to run more or less in range with the camaro given its trap speeds. DRIVER WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE CARS...

04-28-2010, 11:25 PM	#4127
fazm Drives: ex-500hp v6 mustang Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: arizona Posts: 605	2.10 60' room for improvement, but not a ton. im sure 1.9s will be possible with practice remember car had 70 miles on it, no cooldown

04-28-2010, 11:37 PM	#4129
DeathChill Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mission, BC Posts: 862	So how much improvement will a better 60' bring? 2.0-1.9 60' would improve times by approximately how much?

04-28-2010, 11:40 PM	#4130
Sax1031 Drives: 2000 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Elgin,SC Posts: 2,707	Yep the 2.10 60ft would be average. If you can squeak a mid-to-low 1.9 60ft on the stock tires the car will run into the 12s in stock form. And this car was picked up and drove to the drag strip. A little break in will see a jump in hp, albeit probably small.