The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[9c1ny]

Originally Posted by big hammer

i've explained the trap speed on the l99 and you ignored it like a fanboi. there are many poor running l99's out there. very poor. it is quite possible that an l99 with headers ran around 105 mph. some run good, some really bad.

they dont run that poor, a stock one "might" trap 105 but theres no way a L99 with headers will

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by 9c1ny

they dont run that poor, a stock one "might" trap 105 but theres no way a L99 with headers will

tell that to the guys who were running 14's with there stock l99's. there were tuning issues from factory. dont get butthurt over it. it's just facts.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

this L99 Car with boltons trapped 87 in the eighth and 112.66 in the 1/4.



if you add another MPH your looking at 113.66 or maybe even higher. Thats close to 114mph right there. Who knows what the rest of the run was like, maybe there was something in the air (kinda like the 112mph runs from the camaro) 115mph might be a lil high but this other clown is making it sound like its outlandish.

or better yet look at this guy with boltons. Hes trapping almost 113 with only 86.xxmph in the 1/8 mile. i dont see people questioning those 1/8mi traps vs 1/4 mile traps here. It seems people dont want to accept it, not because it might not make sense, but because its a mustang!




oh yeah one more. 2010 Camaro with boltons. Traps 89 in the 1/8 and over 115 in the 1/4. sure its 1 more mph in the 1/8 but its still close. Anyways not sure why people think its that unbelievable when theres similar numbers on this very site (and thats only getting to the second page of the "fatstest list!") that are accepted without scrutiny.

i already told you little fella, if someone came in here claiming 115 trap speed out of an ls3 i wouldn't believe it either.

fact is 115 in this circumstance doesn't make sense. you have no facts to back it up other than you're a troll fanboi. nobody questions that the 5.0 is a 12 second car. it's quick. but not that quick.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by big hammer

i already told you little fella, if someone came in here claiming 115 trap speed out of an ls3 i wouldn't believe it either.

fact is 115 in this circumstance doesn't make sense. you have no facts to back it up other than you're a troll fanboi. nobody questions that the 5.0 is a 12 second car. it's quick. but not that quick.

you ignore the fact that the Camaro has been as fast as 112+ even putting down the same power but weighing 250lbs MORE and being at a gearing disadvantage. the 115mph is as believeable as the 112mph.

As for the L99's with boltons, they have proven to be strong runners and the MPH's of the "fast" list show that.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by 9c1ny

they dont run that poor, a stock one "might" trap 105 but theres no way a L99 with headers will

seems he wants to throw you guys under the bus to try to build a case for himself. It aint working though which is why hes trying to make it a personal argument with the name calling. hey its not like its my favorite thing in the world that the lowly GT trapped 115mph, thats starting to get in pullied Terminator territory!!! its right on my heels as well.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

you ignore the fact that the Camaro has been as fast as 112+ even putting down the same power but weighing 250lbs MORE and being at a gearing disadvantage. the 115mph is as believeable as the 112mph.

As for the L99's with boltons, they have proven to be strong runners and the MPH's of the "fast" list show that.

How do you explain the 112 trap of Evan Smith? with a lighter car and less drivetrain loss?

Watch his video...if you think the shifts can get any harder/quicker than that you are kidding yourself.

Lets just wait and see what happens...maybe the A6 is geared very well for the cars powerband is all I can think of. Like I said I can see how it is possible....just unlikely.

Power under the curve and torque advantage goes to the camaro. It must mean something...it is neck and neck with the 5.0 with 250lbs extra, 3.42 gears, 20 inch wheels and IRS......despite putting down equal HP numbers to the ground.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by big hammer

and this mustang is basically the same as the one that has been out for years. so parts are readily available for it. and it's been done by a performance shop with the mustang. just to keep things clear.

The s197 has been out for years, yes. The engine and transmission are entirely new. It still took the ls1 until 2004 to do it despite the fact that the fbody had been around for years before 1998. Look, I'm not taking away from the fact that fbodies have done it and they are an extremely impressive platform that KILLED the mustang for years, you are just making a statement that insinuates this achievement is eclipsed even by the ls1 f-bodies, which is just untrue. What do you think this car would have run at 2650 lb race weight with a super loose stalled auto, because that's what it took for the first bolt on f-body to do it along with many, MANY more bolt ons than this mustang is equipped with. Like I said, I'm just keeping the facts straight.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

How do you explain the 112 trap of Evan Smith? with a lighter car and less drivetrain loss?

Watch his video...if you think the shifts can get any harder/quicker than that you are kidding yourself.

Lets just wait and see what happens...maybe the A6 is geared very well for the cars powerband is all I can think of. Like I said I can see how it is possible....just unlikely.

Power under the curve and torque advantage goes to the camaro. It must mean something...it is neck and neck with the 5.0 with 250lbs extra, 3.42 gears, 20 inch wheels and IRS......despite putting down equal HP numbers to the ground.

This. There is absolutely no point in arguing if the 115 trap is real or fake because it is quite possible, however unlikely. Someone also said the track had a negative DA that day... We just won't know until we see more auto 5.0s run and even manuals with better conditions.

[9c1ny]

Originally Posted by big hammer

tell that to the guys who were running 14's with there stock l99's. there were tuning issues from factory. dont get butthurt over it. it's just facts.

I'm not "butthurt" just wondering why idiots like you are allowed to post here

I only owned a L99, sorry you obviously have more expertise with the topic at hand, I'll just STFU now

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

How do you explain the 112 trap of Evan Smith? with a lighter car and less drivetrain loss?

Watch his video...if you think the shifts can get any harder/quicker than that you are kidding yourself.....

Lighter car? I believe the auto Mustang and manual versions weigh the same. At least i remember reading that. And as far as less drivetrain loss, didnt Evan Smiths car put down 375rwhp? thats only marginally more than the 371rwhp i saw the automatic guy put up. I didnt pay attention to the torque graph but i guess its possible that the auto could put down more with the help of the torque converter.

The auto tranny shifts fast without ever having to take your foot off the pedal, that plus not having to shift into 5th gear at the end of the track might help the auto a bit.

since ive proven here that 115mph is indeed possible,it should not be disreguarded just because it burns someones eyes to look at is all im saying. Nobody is saying 115mph is the norm either btw....

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

The s197 has been out for years, yes. The engine and transmission are entirely new. It still took the ls1 until 2004 to do it despite the fact that the fbody had been around for years before 1998. Look, I'm not taking away from the fact that fbodies have done it and they are an extremely impressive platform that KILLED the mustang for years, you are just making a statement that insinuates this achievement is eclipsed even by the ls1 f-bodies, which is just untrue. What do you think this car would have run at 2650 lb race weight with a super loose stalled auto, because that's what it took for the first bolt on f-body to do it along with many, MANY more bolt ons than this mustang is equipped with. Like I said, I'm just keeping the facts straight.

i appreciate that.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

Lighter car? I believe the auto Mustang and manual versions weigh the same. At least i remember reading that. And as far as less drivetrain loss, didnt Evan Smiths car put down 375rwhp? thats only marginally more than the 371rwhp i saw the automatic guy put up. I didnt pay attention to the torque graph but i guess its possible that the auto could put down more with the help of the torque converter.

The auto tranny shifts fast without ever having to take your foot off the pedal, that plus not having to shift into 5th gear at the end of the track might help the auto a bit.

since ive proven here that 115mph is indeed possible,it should not be disreguarded just because it burns someones eyes to look at is all im saying. Nobody is saying 115mph is the norm either btw....

I missed that. Could you explain a bit better?

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

I missed that. Could you explain a bit better?

reread the last couple pages of the thread. I even posted pics of the timeslips that prove the 1/8 mile to 1/4mile ratio is not as unusual as most would want to believe.

[firelife25]

im not gonna argue with you...if you dont think its true call them yourself....you cant argue with ford guys they will never admit when they are wrong...but hey go buy one yourself and when you are not seeing the numbers you thinkyou will dont cry about it....go troll somewhere else