R&T: FRPP 400hp Mustang GT tested!

[eddiehaskell]

Originally Posted by nester7929

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.

Supposedly they both make 400hp. The 4.6 probably makes much more torque with the blower.

[davidj]

Originally Posted by fazm

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).

Well in this case it would seem with this much more HP, the tires could be spinning alot. Which would slow the trap speed considerably.

[eddiehaskell]

Tire spin off the line doesn't have a big impact on trap speed. I could spin badly and cut a 2.5 second 60' and run 110 mph or I could cut a 1.9 60' and run 110 mph.

[lil_chef]

well clearly the driver sucks.... the article states that the stock 2010 mustang gets to 60 in 5.3 seconds when i think others have gotten 4.9 or 5.0 flat. so take a couple of tenths off of that 4.9 and thats your real time to 60mph. and the driver was probably talking on the phone and eating while getting that quarter mile time...........

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by eddiehaskell

Tire spin off the line doesn't have a big impact on trap speed. I could spin badly and cut a 2.5 second 60' and run 110 mph or I could cut a 1.9 60' and run 110 mph.

having a faster trap speed doesnt always equal a faster car, see my post above for details... but yes u can still get up to speed at the end after spinning im sure.

[eddiehaskell]

Originally Posted by lil_chef

well clearly the driver sucks.... the article states that the stock 2010 mustang gets to 60 in 5.3 seconds when i think others have gotten 4.9 or 5.0 flat. so take a couple of tenths off of that 4.9 and thats your real time to 60mph. and the driver was probably talking on the phone and eating while getting that quarter mile time...........

They probably said 5.3 because that's about what the Mustang runs without the track pack.

Regardless folks, I pointed this article out because of the trap speed - not because the car ran a slow 1/4 or 0-60. Like the Camaro, this car can run faster in the 1/4 and 0-60.

[eddiehaskell]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

having a faster trap speed doesnt always equal a faster car, see my post above for details... but yes u can strill get up to speed at the end after spinning im sure.

Given similar gearing and traction, the car with the higher trap speed will be quicker.

Given a higher trap speed, the car with a higher MPH is faster - i.e. if you gun it from 30mph, you will accelerate quicker.

Fast and quick have different meanings here.

[Grape Ape]

Originally Posted by cam2fst4u

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

I was thinking maybe they were racing up hill or on a dirt road.

[eddiehaskell]

Originally Posted by wjones14

fdjizm, you might be wasting your breath, er typing, trying to debate something with eddiehaskell. He doesn't really listen to anything other than his own preconceived notions.

I will correct your misinformation one time and one time only. I'm not trying to be mean or or snarky, but it's kind of getting tiring.

There's another thread where he's discounting Road & Track's slalom and skidpad test on the Camaro SS, because R&T said the Camaro's results were a "far cry" from the 2010 track pack-equipped Mustang GT.

I didn't discount them because the Mustang put up a better number. As I told you - different day, different temps, different driver, different surface conditions, different day, etc etc. There is no way to standardize test with so many varibales.

And then when I asked why, he told me that I was doing too much "magazine racing"... which is exactly what he's doing here, btw.

You were. I'm comparing MPH - an objective piece of data. You could argue that temperature could've affected the Mustang's MPH, but I don't think it could make up 3 mph in equal conditions. Regardless, what I'm doing is showing people what it might take to out MPH a Camaro SS.

Then he went on to explain that skidpad and slalom are not true indicators of handling and to argue his point,

Commonly known truths.

he claimed that the Mazda Miata is an excellent handling car (I agree)

As you should.

and yet it gets crappy skidpad and slalom numbers (I don't think that part is really true, and he never provided any numbers,

You want numbers? I've got numbers:

Car and Driver: http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_g...cs+page-2.html

0.89g

Edmunds: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=114886

0.88g

Autoweek: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showt...hp?t=123618013

0.88g

Using your logic, the Mustang and Camaro outhandle the Miata.

but nonetheless, that was his argument). He said the true test of a car's handling is on a road course.

This is where critical reading skills are crucial.

Here is what I said:

Skidpad and slalom numbers are just that...numbers. Handling is better scored while transitioning around a road or track.

So yes, on a road or road course is where you can see how a car handles. Going in a circle and measuring g force means nothing. Transitioning around a back road or around a road course is where a car's handling can be put to the test and you can get an idea of how the car handles. When you drive a great handling car, do you venture out to a parking lot and see how fast you can drive in a circle?

So then I showed him Car & Driver's "Lightning Lap" results from the past 3 years, where annually they take a bunch of cars to Virginia International Raceway's 4.2 mile road course and compare the lap times. Guess which car came in dead last out of 50 cars? .... yep, the Mazda Miata.

You didn't show me anything. I'm fully aware of C&D's results. What you did do is prove my point that handling CANNOT be objectified. You can't say car X pulled more g's therefore it handles better than car Y. That's silly. It's silly to say the Mustang handles better because it pulled more g's (in a seperate test). What you would need to do is take both cars to the road course or on a back road. You error is that you believe there is a magic number that quantifies handling. That number doesn't exist.

He finally said you can't judge a car's handling by any objective measurement

I never said you could. What I did say is that the Camaro will be faster around the road course.

road course lap times, skidpad numbers, and slalom numbers are all useless.

You aren't exactly correct on the first one. The road course is the culmination of braking, power, handling, balance and other factors. One could argue that the road course is where a car puts together everything that people look for in a car. If a car handles bad - track times will suffer. If it has bad brakes - track times will suffer. If it doesn't have enough power, track times will suffer.

Have a good night.

[The_Blur]

I like that the Ford Racing supercharger kit really isn't saving the Mustang from the pummeling that the Camaro will deliver it. I do, however, wish that GMPP would offer a similar kit. Guys with superchargers have a lot more than that attached to their cars.

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by mbrusco103

what would they do if GM puts a super charger on the Camaro.

[truth411]

I am I missing something here?? it cost $10,500!!!!! Why in the world would anybody buy this package that when equipt still looses to a stock Camaro SS?? would it not be better to just get the GT-500.

[truth411]

But on a side note, It would be cool if we had say a $12,000 Z28 package!!! (wink, wink GM)

[THE EVIL TW1N]

LOL traps are also dependent on driver, just not as much as ET. But traps can be affected. I've seen LS1 powered cars trap 99-101 stock with a manual.

if the stock 4.6's trap 103's, adding 100 hp is not going to make it trap only 5 mph higher. That's just wishful thinking on the camaro owners part.