vs. Old School Muscle

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by 2013 RaceRed 5.0

Negative. The 4th gen Z and the 10 GT both run 13.8 quarters.

You might want to check road tests of the cars a little more.

I've been reading these claims for 20 years now. Some people want to turn the 4th gen SS into some kind of 400hp monster, which it simply is not. As I had already said in a prev post, ~320-340hp. Nothing more.

But believe what you want.



True, only cars with 426 hemis, 440's, Boss 429's, LS6's and some 455's ran high 13's.

The garden variety 60's muscle cars were high 14/low 15 sec cars. That still put them ahead of 70's muscle, as they were dealing with new emission standards. But mid 80's muscle caught up with the old time generic muscle, and at least one (Buick GN) actually equaled the high 13 sec times of the fastest 60's cars.

Dude, you have no idea what the F' your talking about. Evan Smith (a Mustang writer/driver/fan) drove not 1 but 2 LS1 F bodies into the 12's. Both times were in comparison articles against the Mustang for which he was doing a article for. One of the times he did it was in the middle of the summer in hot positive DA. Trap speeds and dyno #s proved it had more than the 305-310HP rating. I never said 400HP. They actually make around 340HP-350HP. A far cry from the 305-310 rating. The SS really didn't make any more power or was any faster than a Z. There is documented factual evidence of the Ls1 f body doing 12's. Lots of private owners did 12's bone stock as well. Show me documented evidence of a bone stock 3v GT doing the same. Bottom line your statements are totally false. Your not even close by a long shot statement seriously makes me laugh and makes you lose all credibility IMO. If you want to educate yourself in the future before making yourself look like a ass Google is your friend.

[VADER SS L99]

Here is part of the Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords article that pitted a Bullitt against a SS. They also mentioned the time they achieved in another comparison with the 1999 Z28. This is a Mustang magazine with a Mustang driver showing factual evidence of what the LS1 F body was capable of.

[Featherburner]

Originally Posted by 2013 RaceRed 5.0

Proof that mainstream journals reveal the 4th gen SS is at best, a mid 13 sec car ...



Does no one else understand the basic concept that when the big 3 tests a car and comes up with performance numbers that are significantly different from those of tuner/specialty mags, that something is up?

Seriously, I learned this fact a long, long time ago. It's old news.

It seems people are either biased or they are new to the performance car scene. Oh well, people still ignore basic facts about 60's muscle, I guess it should come as no surprise they're doing it with 90's muscle.

I guess some things never change ...

Here, I posted the definition because you are living it but don't understand the meaning or how to recognize it. Pay special attention to the bold one near the bottom. Hope this helps. Oh, and LOL at posting Motor Trend as your proof!

de·ni·al
diˈnīəl/
noun
noun: denial

1. the action of declaring something to be untrue.
   "she shook her head in denial"
   synonyms: contradiction, refutation, rebuttal, repudiation, disclaimer; More negation, dissent
   "the reports met with a denial"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   • the refusal of something requested or desired.
     "the denial of insurance to people with certain medical conditions"
     synonyms: refusal, withholding; More rejection, rebuff, repulse, veto, turndown;
     formaldeclination
     "the denial of insurance to certain people"
     
     
     
     
     
     
   • a statement that something is not true.
     plural noun: denials
     "official denials"
     synonyms: contradiction, refutation, rebuttal, repudiation, disclaimer; More negation, dissent
     "the reports met with a denial"
     
     
     
     
     
     
   • Psychology
     failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism.
     "you're living in denial"
     
     
     
   • short for self-denial.
     
     
     
   • disavowal of a person as one's leader.
     
     
   
   
   
   

[big hammer]

blerp

[big hammer]

the ls1 in the fbodies was internally identical to the ls1 in the vette which was 350hp.

[big hammer]

even the original boss 302 with the "it's probably more like 500 actual hp" only ran 93-97 mph.

[big hammer]

but then again you look at the F.A.S.T. cars and those old girls boogie.

[big hammer]

[big hammer]

[big hammer]

[McRat]

Originally Posted by 2013 RaceRed 5.0

Proof that mainstream journals reveal the 4th gen SS is at best, a mid 13 sec car ...



Does no one else understand the basic concept that when the big 3 tests a car and comes up with performance numbers that are significantly different from those of tuner/specialty mags, that something is up?

Seriously, I learned this fact a long, long time ago. It's old news.

It seems people are either biased or they are new to the performance car scene. Oh well, people still ignore basic facts about 60's muscle, I guess it should come as no surprise they're doing it with 90's muscle.

I guess some things never change ...

Ah Motor Trend! Love those guys!

You do know that nobody on their staff knew how to drive back then, right?

Not sure they do today either, but I don't know.

Here's the next issue of MT:

Dyson vs Hoover vs MT Editor Shootout!
We find out who REALLY sucks harder, and the answer might surprise you!

Seriously, these guys ran 12.85 in a Z06. HAHAHAHA!!!! Lordy they suck!

[McRat]

Love that comparison data as well. That Camaro had 2Y2 content is heavily marked up. In reality an SS was cheaper than the Cobra.

5500 RPM redline for the LS1? Really? Try 6250, but it pulled hard into the limiter, peak was at 6200 in the real world.

11.84 0-100mph vs 13.17 0-100mph, yet .3 difference in the 1/4? Did they hit the brakes?

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by 2013 RaceRed 5.0

Proof that mainstream journals reveal the 4th gen SS is at best, a mid 13 sec car ...



Does no one else understand the basic concept that when the big 3 tests a car and comes up with performance numbers that are significantly different from those of tuner/specialty mags, that something is up?

Seriously, I learned this fact a long, long time ago. It's old news.

It seems people are either biased or they are new to the performance car scene. Oh well, people still ignore basic facts about 60's muscle, I guess it should come as no surprise they're doing it with 90's muscle.

I guess some things never change ...

Look at the trap speed for the article that I posted and then look at the trap speed for the article that you posted. See anything that jumps out at you??????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????? Something is up you say with the MM&FF results? What part of Mustang magazine do you not comprehend? Why in the world would they scew the results in favor of the Camaro that shows their equally priced Bullitt getting raped by the Camaro by about a full second in the 1/4mile?
Dude, when your standing in a huge hole wondering how you got there the best thing to do would be STOP DIGGING.

[Stealthpanda]

Originally Posted by McRat

Love that comparison data as well. That Camaro had 2Y2 content is heavily marked up. In reality an SS was cheaper than the Cobra.

5500 RPM redline for the LS1? Really? Try 6250, but it pulled hard into the limiter, peak was at 6200 in the real world.

11.84 0-100mph vs 13.17 0-100mph, yet .3 difference in the 1/4? Did they hit the brakes?

Man has a point. What the duece.