2013 Mustang GT500 MEGA THREAD - Page 22

ffrcobra_65 · 05-15-2012, 04:31 PM

2010 GT500 did a 11.95 on stock tires.

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...est/index.html

2013 GT500...forget about it.

8cd03gro · 05-15-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Now, you're really gettin' off-track, my friend.

There isn't a C5 Z06 in the WORLD that was built 54/46 in Bowling Green...NADA!

I suggest you find the June and July/05 copies of VETTE Magazine and you'll see firsthand how we built the "Project One Lap Z06"...that started @ 51/49 and ended up 50/50...with a full 'cage...and 305/325 Michelins...and a/c and cruise...and finished SECOND OVERALL, One Lap '06...

Weigh distribution is one of many factors and it's hardly the sole deciding factor. My car's weight distribution is HEAVILY front-biased, but it carves corners like a scalpel thanks to my sway/spring setup properly countering the severe weight imbalance.

LOWDOWN · 05-15-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tt335ci03cobra

I want the bone stock zl1 to pull 11.5's@123 for my own agenda as I have a $500 bet with a buddy that someone will this summer. I fear i will lose the bet though.

Summer lasts till 9/21, roughly. Get ready to CASH that check instead o' writin' it...

tt335ci03cobra · 05-15-2012, 04:41 PM

I agree 110%, I hope the next gens all come in at 3500 tops in gt500/zl1/392 and the base 6's click out at 3100 tops with mid models at 3300.

I only brought up the weight/gearing/etc because it's honestly true that the 50 or so ft/lbs of torque a 6.2 has over a 5.0 coyote at 2500rpms can be offset by this factors.

The ford has a decent dyno as does the ss and they are closer in torque than the displacement would seem.

Ss

5.0

LOWDOWN · 05-15-2012, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Weigh distribution is one of many factors and it's hardly the sole deciding factor. My car's weight distribution is HEAVILY front-biased, but it carves corners like a scalpel thanks to my sway/spring setup properly countering the severe weight imbalance.

Gee, being an FWD-derived AWD Subie, that's no surprize...they're awesome cars, especially when tweaked...which, no doubt, yours is, right?

After all, what does WRC stand for? And the STi is "one step beyond", as my late and lamented friend Al Olster used to name his Camaros (and a Plymouth!).

http://classracer.com/classforum/sho...t=37860&page=2

garcmol · 05-15-2012, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Gee, being an FWD-derived AWD Subie, that's no surprize...they're awesome cars, especially when tweaked...which, no doubt, yours is, right?

After all, what does WRC stand for? And the STi is "one step beyond", as my late and lamented friend Al Olster used to name his Camaros (and a Plymouth!).

http://classracer.com/classforum/sho...t=37860&page=2

It's WRX (world rally cross homage) STi is Subaru Technical international I believe

garcmol · 05-15-2012, 05:06 PM

And bone stock, 11.9. Add a pulley you're at 11.5

But I too wait to see what this bad ass mustang is going to do when it opens up! I hate suspense thrillers

cbass · 05-15-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

I only brought up the weight/gearing/etc because it's honestly true that the 50 or so ft/lbs of torque a 6.2 has over a 5.0 coyote at 2500rpms can be offset by this factors.

The ford has a decent dyno as does the ss and they are closer in torque than the displacement would seem.

Sure. But you can change the final ratio on a ss to make the gearing shorter. If the factory made the gearing shorter on the SS, then it would have been faster with the LS3.

That insideline dyno is off in the woods. The coyote is a great performing motor, but those are the highest results I have seen for a stock coyote.

It's not the peak torque that I am looking at. It's the entire powerband.

8cd03gro · 05-15-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Gee, being an FWD-derived AWD Subie, that's no surprize...they're awesome cars, especially when tweaked...which, no doubt, yours is, right?

After all, what does WRC stand for? And the STi is "one step beyond", as my late and lamented friend Al Olster used to name his Camaros (and a Plymouth!).

http://classracer.com/classforum/sho...t=37860&page=2

It's actually symmetrical awd, there is no transfer case so it is not derived from front wheel drive and torque bias is to the rear wheels. My point was that weight distribution is in no way the end all. Center of gravity, moment of inertia, spring rates, sways, diff type, camber, toe, etc.

JimmyDeanSausage · 05-15-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tt335ci03cobra

It's true; fords officially released that info.

Again, source?

JimmyDeanSausage · 05-15-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

'Course, "surface conditions" weren't considered by those folks, were they?

Apparently "altitude" wasn't considered by you. The less than optimal surface conditions at Inde are MORE than offset by the extremely optimal (for launching, and, once corrected, ETs) altitude, which is why you see NUMEROUS people (Hennessey, Redline, etc) running WORSE times on better prepped surfaces at lower elevations.

Not really sure why I'm wasting my time pointing this out to you, since you'll just ignore it or try and spin it into a positive for the Camaro or a negative for the Shelby, as you do with everything, no matter how irrational it is.

JimmyDeanSausage · 05-15-2012, 05:13 PM

P.S. GT500s have been released for shipping. Have your excuses ready?

LOWDOWN · 05-15-2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyDeanSausage

which is why you see NUMEROUS people (Hennessey, Redline, etc) running WORSE times on better prepped surfaces at lower elevations.

For the eleven-hundred-millionth time, NO tuner shop has any interest in reaching a vehicle's ultimate performance IN STOCK TRIM...NONE.

They'll run a "base time"...then throw their "magic" at 'em, and bang the drum about how their super-duper-ultimate-ginormous "technology" will gain YOU all manner of delightful time slips AFTER you write them an equally ginormous check...

Shops who can ONLY run 12.5s ought to know better...or just quit. For God's sake, CandD ran 12.3s on SAND...in ARIZONA...which is nowhere near sea level... INDE, not Firebird.

eolson · 05-15-2012, 05:40 PM

So why not put a 300lb bag of sand in the back of the GT500 and it should hook up better, than eject it(like James Bond) right after launch, or keep it, because obviously the SVT guys didn't already know the front/rear ratio, so they didn't engineer it into their suspension.

So if we added 155lbs to the lower back of the 2013 GT500, it would have a perfect 50/50 front/rear weight ratio, and perform better than the current SVT design? Erik

View Poll Results: ZL1 or GT500, Which one would you get?
ZL1	5	35.71%
GT500	9	64.29%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

05-15-2012, 04:41 PM	#298
tt335ci03cobra Drives: 03 cobra 5.3 4v fgt's+62's Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: USA Posts: 146	I agree 110%, I hope the next gens all come in at 3500 tops in gt500/zl1/392 and the base 6's click out at 3100 tops with mid models at 3300. I only brought up the weight/gearing/etc because it's honestly true that the 50 or so ft/lbs of torque a 6.2 has over a 5.0 coyote at 2500rpms can be offset by this factors. The ford has a decent dyno as does the ss and they are closer in torque than the displacement would seem. Ss 5.0 __________________ Silver 03 cobra coupe -Full mm/ftbr chassis, built irs/t56, 3.73s, trutrac -Braces, 6pt, flsc's, brembos, rotary forged sochi's -9.3/1 Livernois 5.3 modular, Diamond, Carrillo etc -FGT heads stage 3 PnP'd, MMR stage 3 turbo grinds -FR500c, custom split maf dual inlet, single blade etc -Comp 62/65 T4's 3xbb, oil/water cooled, blankets etc -CG Fab. ff headers, custom 3" hotside, Tial wastegates -Dual in/out 3" cold side, Tial bov's, Truboost, SCT, NGk -Custom 8qt oil, dual 405s return fuel with id2000's, etc

05-15-2012, 05:06 PM	#301
garcmol Drives: 10 1LT SIM; 91 B4C sleeper Z Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Ft. Mitchell, Alabama Posts: 7,198	And bone stock, 11.9. Add a pulley you're at 11.5 But I too wait to see what this bad ass mustang is going to do when it opens up! I hate suspense thrillers __________________ Pedders Pace Car Package, Injen CAI, Flowmaster AT, AAC Lighting, ZL1 fascia/skirts, RKSport Ram Air hood, vented fenders, painted stripes (Gary's Customz), Honor and Valor badged (Thank you, John)

05-15-2012, 05:40 PM	#308
eolson eolson Drives: 2006 premium Package Mustang GT cou Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Northville, MI Posts: 249	So why not put a 300lb bag of sand in the back of the GT500 and it should hook up better, than eject it(like James Bond) right after launch, or keep it, because obviously the SVT guys didn't already know the front/rear ratio, so they didn't engineer it into their suspension. So if we added 155lbs to the lower back of the 2013 GT500, it would have a perfect 50/50 front/rear weight ratio, and perform better than the current SVT design? Erik __________________ 2006 Prem Pkg Mustang GT coupe. Saleen SC,10psi, 454rwhp,442rwtq, Complete Steeda/H&R, suspension change out, with weight loss, Techco Watts link, Stoptech big brakes, Race clutch, Alum. flywheel, Alum 1 pc driveshaft, 9x18,10x18 chrome bullit wheels, 285/40/18,255/45/18 nitto 555 tires. 3545 lbs currently. New car scent air freshener.

05-15-2012, 04:31 PM	#295
ffrcobra_65 Account Suspended Drives: SuperCharged 2SS/RS IOM MN6 Join Date: May 2009 Location: CA Posts: 5,094	2010 GT500 did a 11.95 on stock tires. http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...est/index.html 2013 GT500...forget about it.

05-15-2012, 05:13 PM	#306
JimmyDeanSausage Banned Drives: GM Join Date: May 2012 Location: Nevada Posts: 76	P.S. GT500s have been released for shipping. Have your excuses ready?