The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by Wandering Scot

Nope, I've seen a few go into the high 12's, and you're right, I've seen some 14 second ones too. However there's a bunch of Camaros out now, with varying skills and mods, but as I stated, till more 5.0's come out we really won't have a handle on what they realy can do.
I honestly do hope they're a low 13 / high 12 second car. Hopefully it'll light a fire under Dodge and Chevy to compete.
Competition is good for everyone, including Ford, but especially for us car guys.

i agree with this entire post.

[YLWJKT]

Originally Posted by EnvyTerra

I am a little confused about this post are you saying you don't believe peoples runs in the new mustang or haven't read of any?

I'm saying that I don't put a lot of stock into internet forum posted times, youboob videos of "stock cars" and magazine prepped cars.

I'll wait till there's a few running around down here on the street and the track that I can see and then I'll draw an opinion on how fast / not fast they are. The 5.0 appears to be a great platform and should be a fast car.
The proof is in the pudding, and I personally hope it's good.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Come the hell on, that's not a real time and you know it. I cannot believe ANYONE would try and post that as proof.

hey calm down, i had never seen that post ever. why are you saying that?Was it concluded that it was a fake?

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

hey calm down, i had never seen that post ever. why are you saying that?Was it concluded that it was a fake?

Posts numbers FROM Motortrend, then says he'll post the timeslip up soon. Never does. The entire thing was suspicious from the beginning and it's extremely unlikely it's real.

I wouldn't care so much, but I know how important it is to you Mustang guys that everything is fair and accurate.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Posts numbers FROM Motortrend, then says he'll post the timeslip up soon. Never does. The entire thing was suspicious from the beginning and it's extremely unlikely it's real.

I wouldn't care so much, but I know how important it is to you Mustang guys that everything is fair and accurate.

well there are some vagueries because he never posted back but the only numbers that he used from motor trend are the braking and lateral acceleration and he points out that he does. I dont see anything wrong with that. Just because he hasnt posted back doesnt mean its fake though. I have posts on other forums where im in the planning process to dyno one of my other cars and state that i will get it dynoed soon or next couple days but just never get around to actually getting it done. Doesnt mean my other cars dont exist.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I was talking about a published mag time. I am sure the test done by Evan Smith had 0-100 in around that time as well. I guess that would technically count.

I am sure people who have run 12.5-12.7 in the camaro have hit 0-100 in around the same time as well. But I guess I didnt clarify in the first place...so nice find I guess.

But yeah I agree it would probably not run away. I was simply implying that it would be something for the test to be off by 2 seconds and that the car pulled even further ahead from the 0-100 time. At the very least the camaro would have the edge is what I was getting at.

But the more I think about it 1 test doesn't mean whole lot....hopefully we see some more 0-130 data in the future.

i was looking at the test numbers for c&D 0-130 test and it looks like the camaro is ahead on that test by .5 to 100mph (took them 11 seconds vs the 10.2 and 10.3 MT got), .7 to 110mph, .5 to 120mph (doesnt look like the camaro is pulling at all 100-120, then all of a sudden 1.8seconds to 130mph. I think it would be more believable that it pulled .8 to 130. seems they "accidentally" added one second to it. If thats the case, then its possible the camaro pulls 100-130mph faster by .3 seconds.

looking at the numbers:

Mustang 50-120: 12 seconds
Camaro 50-120: 11.9 seconds

Mustang 70-120: 9.7 seconds
Camaro 70-120: 9.6 seconds

Mustang 100-120: 4.8 seconds
Camaro 100-120: 4.8 seconds

looks like the C&D test was even closer than i thought even though the Mustang trapped noticeably slower than the Camaro in that test.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Speaking of fair and accurate.

Evil Tw1n...you never responded to my data on 3rd gear speed of the camaro. Your calculator is flawed when using data for both the camaro and mustang. It shows 114mph for both cars in 3rd and 4th respectively.

I guess the only thing left to do is take my friend along with his phone (htc incredible) and get a vid of my car hitting the limiter at 110-111. And then confirm that my speedo is accurate with the GPS feature in his phone?

I posted up a separate calculator with a correction factor for various real world variances and even provided two links to mag tests showing the 3rd gear speed of the camaro at 110 mph. Let alone my own personal experience which was quickly disregarded as a speedometer error in my brand new car with factory tires and rims and factory tire pressure.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

i was looking at the test numbers for c&D 0-130 test and it looks like the camaro is ahead on that test by .5 to 100mph (took them 11 seconds vs the 10.2 and 10.3 MT got), .7 to 110mph, .5 to 120mph (doesnt look like the camaro is pulling at all 100-120, then all of a sudden 1.8seconds to 130mph. I think it would be more believable that it pulled .8 to 130. seems they "accidentally" added one second to it. If thats the case, then its possible the camaro pulls 100-130mph faster by .3 seconds.

looking at the numbers:

Mustang 50-120: 12 seconds
Camaro 50-120: 11.9 seconds

Mustang 70-120: 9.7 seconds
Camaro 70-120: 9.6 seconds

Mustang 100-120: 4.8 seconds
Camaro 100-120: 4.8 seconds

looks like the C&D test was even closer than i thought even though the Mustang trapped noticeably slower than the Camaro in that test.

Must have been a mis-print. I found almost 2 seconds a little odd as well. About .3 advantage from 120-130 would be a lot more believable. .3 at 130 mph would be a nice lead for what its worth....not much from only 1 test though.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Speaking of fair and accurate.

Evil Tw1n...you never responded to my data on 3rd gear speed of the camaro. Your calculator is flawed when using data for both the camaro and mustang. It shows 114mph for both cars in 3rd and 4th respectively.

I guess the only thing left to do is take my friend along with his phone (htc incredible) and get a vid of my car hitting the limiter at 110-111. And then confirm that my speedo is accurate with the GPS feature in his phone?

I posted up a separate calculator with a correction factor for various real world variances and even provided two links to mag tests showing the 3rd gear speed of the camaro at 110 mph. Let alone my own personal experience which was quickly disregarded as a speedometer error in my brand new car with factory tires and rims and factory tire pressure.

how the heck am i supposed to respond to a calculator that tries to blame tire diameter on the the rotation of the moon?? I think the GPS thing would be more accurate (but the test on for the speedometer would have to be while the car is accelerating and not at steady state). Of course there would need to be more evidence then just your word as well

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Must have been a mis-print. I found almost 2 seconds a little odd as well. About .3 advantage from 120-130 would be a lot more believable. .3 at 130 mph would be a nice lead for what its worth....not much from only 1 test though.

.3 in that test yes, but 130mph is pretty much an MPH that doesnt matter. WHo drives that fast on public roads?

[2SSARMY]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I have watched 3 2010 SSs run mid 14s. One was even modded.

I guess the 2010 SS is a 14 second car at best.

I've seen about 20 GTs running 15-16 seconds at the track.

I guess the 2005-2010 GT is a 15/16 second car at best.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by 2SSARMY

I've seen about 20 GTs running 15-16 seconds at the track.

I guess the 2005-2010 GT is a 15/16 second car at best.

i understand people running slower than whats common on the internet but do you have any videos of 2005-2010 GT's running 15's and 16's??

BTW your post just further proved the point that other guy was trying to make.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

how the heck am i supposed to respond to a calculator that tries to blame tire diameter on the the rotation of the moon?? I think the GPS thing would be more accurate (but the test on for the speedometer would have to be while the car is accelerating and not at steady state). Of course there would need to be more evidence then just your word as well

Or a calculator that doesnt factor in anything? Yeah the rotation of the moon lol. It takes into account vehicle weight, varying tire pressures, temperatures. It has a ballpark correction factor that is, from the looks of it, more accurate than your calc.

And the road and track numbers at 6500 rpm? Since you dismissed the automobile mag numbers because they didnt mention the RPM. I guess because the link was broken (to the road and track figures)the fact that a member quoted the numbers isnt good enough...they knew about this issue/argument years in advance also.

Or the fact that all these numbers MATCH across the board form the calculator to the automobile mag test to the road and track test to my own personal experience as well as others.

Everyone must have a messed up speedo. And all these tests and calculators must have known ahead of time we would be arguing about this and the results are skewed.

Wow...I have never seen anyone that was this stubborn/in denial when the possibility of them being wrong is presented.

But you know what...I guess if we are just going to go by your calculator the speed in 4th attainable by the 2011 mustang GT is 114...so I guess neither side has an excuse.

Either way...your argument using your calculator is not in your favor.

[2SSARMY]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

i understand people running slower than whats common on the internet but do you have any videos of 2005-2010 GT's running 15's and 16's??

BTW your post just further proved the point that other guy was trying to make.

Should've taken the camera on friday. 05 GT with catbacks running straight 15.x~. Really cool guy, but he was disappointed in his car.