R&T: FRPP 400hp Mustang GT tested! - Page 2

detroitboy · 03-22-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

thats your point... based off crappy drivers in the mustang.

jizm's point is that with a better driver and a better road, those numbers should improve.

so settle down eddie.

As usual...you got that shit right spike! And the next question is driveline longevity. I hope they added some beef to it. If not...they should have just redesigned the entire driveline like GM did for the Camaro. One band aid just results in another band aid further on down the line.
I bet its a fun car to drive though.

fdjizm · 03-22-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

Point is: the stock Camaro SS traps 111mph which is faster than the FRPP supercharged Mustang GT - thus, after you drop $7000 in modifications on the Mustang, the stock Camaro will still be capable of going faster.

but nobody asked that question.... lol whats up with u guys?

all im saying is that they ran stock gt numbers on a 400hp gt... if that doesnt raise a question in your mind you are in extreme denial...

eddiehaskell · 03-22-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

thats your point... based off crappy drivers in the mustang.

jizm's point is that with a better driver and a better road, those numbers should improve.

so settle down eddie.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The Mustang's trap speed is 108 mph. The Camaro traps 111mph. Drivers DO NOT matter when it comes to trap speed.

Trap speed is an indicator of which car is faster. For example, Brittney Spears could drive a car and get the same trap speed as Jeff Gordon as long as she knows how to mash the gas pedal.

I understand fully what jizm's is saying, but as I staated, drivers don't matter when it comes to MPH.

fdjizm · 03-22-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The Mustang's trap speed is 108 mph. The Camaro traps 111mph. Drivers do not matter when it comes to trap speed. Trap speed is an indicator of which car is faster. For example, Brittney Spears could drive a car and get the same trap speed as Jeff Gordon as long as she knows how to mash the gas pedal.

I understand fully what jizm's is saying, but as I staated, drivers don't matter when it comes to MPH.

one more time eddie nobody asked that question about trap speed,. I STATED that they ran like crap and you know they did, how can i run 13.5 in my GT and it has what 269 to the ground and these people got a 400hp gt to run my speed?

my question to you is.. do u think something is wrong with that or will you just stay in denial and think that a 400hp mustang actually runs 13.4?? remember the 390hp cobra? mid 12's ...

are u telling me the people that reviewed this car drove it? now be honest with me eddie... anyone can agree on this.. it doesnt take a genius to figure out they should not be running 13.4 with a 400hp car....

cam2fst4u · 03-22-2009, 09:37 PM

does anyone know if the wind was blowing and if they were driving into the wind?

Redwolf20 · 03-22-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

they would literally shit a brick

Just the visual was painful!!

Agree with fdjizm's assessment.

CommandoSS · 03-22-2009, 09:42 PM

So how much is this supercharged GT going to cost? I saw something about a $10,500 add-on? Are they nuts?

fdjizm · 03-22-2009, 09:42 PM

i mean come on now guys i can say that a bad driver drove that camaro in the edmunds review, you really think 400hp should run 13.4? lol thats a bone stock gt at the track all day long you tube it.
these people cant drive you know it i know it... why would u ever believe these numbers is beyond me.

eddiehaskell · 03-22-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdjizm

one more time eddie nobody asked that question about trap speed,.

I know that. I was just making a statement.

Quote:

I STATED that they ran like crap and you know they did, how can i run 13.5 in my GT and it has what 269 to the ground and these people got a 400hp gt to run my speed?

This is why I choose to look at MPH. MPH is not driver dependent. I'm sure the Camaro can go faster than 13.0 and I'm sure the FRPP Mustang can go faster than 13.5. However, looking at the trap speeds, the Camaro should ultimately go faster than the FRPP Mustang because it's more powerful (111mph vs 108mph). Put a great driver in both cars and the MPH indicates that the Camaro is faster.

Quote:

my question to you is.. do u think somethijng is wrong with that or will you just stay in denial and think that a 400hp mustang actually runs 13.4?? remember the 390hp cobra? mid 12's ...

Read my above comment. I prefer not to look at 1/4 times because they are very driver dependent. MPH isn't.

For example: If I see one car that runs 14.0@115 and another that runs 13.0@103 mph, I would instantly think that the driver who ran 14.0@115 has the faster car, but he doesn't know how to drive it.

fdjizm · 03-22-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

I know that. I was just making a statement.

This is why I choose to look at MPH. MPH is not driver dependent. I'm sure the Camaro can go faster than 13.0 and I'm sure the FRPP Mustang can go faster than 13.5. However, looking at the trap speeds, the Camaro should ultimately gas faster than the FRPP Mustang because it's more powerful (111mph vs 108mph).

Read my above comment. I prefer not to look at 1/4 times because they are very driver dependent. MPH isn't.

For example: If I see one car that runs 14.0@115 and another that runs 13.0@103 mph, I would instantly think that the driver who ran 14.0@115 has the faster car, but he doesn't know how to drive it.

ok gotcha so obviously you dont really think a 400hp mustang runs 13.4 @111mph tops? when a stock 300hp runs 13.5 @ 103mph?

eddiehaskell · 03-22-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdjizm

ok gotcha so obviously you dont really think a 400hp mustang runs 13.4 @111mph tops? when a stock 300hp runs 13.5 @ 103mph?

no

fdjizm · 03-22-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

no

ok cool im glad it only took 4 posts to get on the same page... btw here is a gt running 12.6 @ 108mph since we want to talk about trap speed

this car has bolt ons.... im sure its less than 400hp yet he is running 12.6

this review = false

so do we agree that whoever drove this 400hp gt cannot drive?

also your putting too much importance on trap speed.. how do you explain the guy that runs 12.6 ran 108mph and this guy runs 12.3 at 106mph?

if your theory is correct the guy that ran 108 should be faster right?
sorry but trap speed doesnt work that way bro.

fazm · 03-22-2009, 09:50 PM

there needs to be a clarification. trap speed is not greatly effected by driver skill. if you take someone that is crappy at shifting, likes to pedal too much, etc you can be talking as little as 1mph but can be more. for example i can take my mustang to a 112 trap speed with only 350rwhp @1200ft elevation. at 400rwhp i trapped 118.5mph. when i let my buddy drive it (who has an 03 cobra that traps 130mph) he only trapped 109mph on the 350rwhp tune, 3 less mph than me.

426/3850 = 9lb/hp
400/3572 = 8.9lb/hp

those are pretty close numbers if you ask me, and the only thing thats making the difference at that point is effective gear ratio (not just rear end ratio).

nester7929 · 03-22-2009, 10:12 PM

This driver must really suck then, because all I have is a CAI, headers, and a catback and I ran a 4.9 just two weeks ago.

Either way, it's only a supercharged version of the old-as-bones 4.6, so it's not a good indicator of how the brand-new 5.0 will perform.

03-22-2009, 09:42 PM	#21
CommandoSS Drives: 05 Chevy Avalanche, 67 Camaro Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 138	So how much is this supercharged GT going to cost? I saw something about a $10,500 add-on? Are they nuts? __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OFFICIAL 2010 Camaro Specifications (full tech specs PDF inside)	Tran	Guides, Manuals, Bulletins, Documentation Archive	394	06-11-2010 07:16 PM
2010 mustang GT track pack tested!! impresive	truth411	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	130	02-05-2009 12:28 PM
Mustang Premium Pricing Revealed	Croathlete	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	56	11-24-2008 02:22 AM
Edmunds: 2010 Ford Mustang First Look	Scotsman	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	32	11-23-2008 10:55 PM

03-22-2009, 09:37 PM	#19
cam2fst4u Drives: 08 SS trailblazer,08 Silverado Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: stanley va Posts: 6,268 View My Garage	does anyone know if the wind was blowing and if they were driving into the wind?

03-22-2009, 09:42 PM	#22
fdjizm Account Suspended Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,429 View My Garage	i mean come on now guys i can say that a bad driver drove that camaro in the edmunds review, you really think 400hp should run 13.4? lol thats a bone stock gt at the track all day long you tube it. these people cant drive you know it i know it... why would u ever believe these numbers is beyond me.

03-22-2009, 09:50 PM	#27
fazm Drives: ex-500hp v6 mustang Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: arizona Posts: 605	there needs to be a clarification. trap speed is not greatly effected by driver skill. if you take someone that is crappy at shifting, likes to pedal too much, etc you can be talking as little as 1mph but can be more. for example i can take my mustang to a 112 trap speed with only 350rwhp @1200ft elevation. at 400rwhp i trapped 118.5mph. when i let my buddy drive it (who has an 03 cobra that traps 130mph) he only trapped 109mph on the 350rwhp tune, 3 less mph than me. 426/3850 = 9lb/hp 400/3572 = 8.9lb/hp those are pretty close numbers if you ask me, and the only thing thats making the difference at that point is effective gear ratio (not just rear end ratio).

03-22-2009, 10:12 PM	#28
nester7929 Rice Harvester Drives: 2014 Bright Yellow 2SS/RS Join Date: May 2008 Location: Plainview, TX Posts: 1,449	This driver must really suck then, because all I have is a CAI, headers, and a catback and I ran a 4.9 just two weeks ago. Either way, it's only a supercharged version of the old-as-bones 4.6, so it's not a good indicator of how the brand-new 5.0 will perform.