So what's really up with MotorTrend??? - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

chevymuscle311 · 06-19-2010, 03:25 PM

Car and Driver= 13.2 http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...07775a541f.pdf

Road and Track= 13.2 http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...emium_data.pdf

Edmunds= 13.0 (originally 13.3) http://www.edmunds.com/ford/mustang/2011/testdrive.html

Motor Trend= 12.7

Something is a little fishy. And before the Mustang owners get their panties bunched up they all had the 3.73 gears and pirelli p-zero's

8cd03gro · 06-19-2010, 04:12 PM

The edmunds link you posted shows

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph)13.0 @110.6

not 13.1.

You also decided to leave out MM&FF's 12.6. MT just ran quicker in theirs. That's what happens.

chevymuscle311 · 06-19-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

The edmunds link you posted shows

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph)13.0 @110.6

not 13.1.

You also decided to leave out MM&FF's 12.6. MT just ran quicker in theirs. That's what happens.

Of course I left off MM&FF's. Does it get anymore biased???

8cd03gro · 06-19-2010, 04:48 PM

Maybe your post with your little typo. It's been proven time and time again that the new gt is easily capable of high 12's, but you are insinuating that MT lied or used a ringer to run a 12.7. If the car is capable of it, which it is, what's the problem? Some other mags ran slower. I've also seen a 13.4 out of a camaro ss in some of those rags. So car and driver's 13.0 must be "fishy."

chevymuscle311 · 06-19-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Maybe your post with your little typo. It's been proven time and time again that the new gt is easily capable of high 12's, but you are insinuating that MT lied or used a ringer to run a 12.7. If the car is capable of it, which it is, what's the problem? Some other mags ran slower. I've also seen a 13.4 out of a camaro ss in some of those rags. So car and driver's 13.0 must be "fishy."

Proven by who? And I am not insinuating anything. Numbers don't lie.

8cd03gro · 06-19-2010, 05:08 PM

Proven by MM&FF running a 12.6 in terrible conditions, by mike bowen of powerhouse running multiple sub 12.8 passes including 2 12.7's, a 12.58, etc. bone stock Without the optional brembos (meaning skinnier tires) in the presence of many witnesses including someone on this forum. Proven by an automatic 5.0 running multiple sub-12.8 passes against a bolt on 5th gen camaro owner. Proven by the fact that the 3v gt was a mid 13 second car and the 5.0 is making about 100rwhp more consistently with even more aggressive gearing. You're right, numbers don't lie. You just have to look at the whole picture instead of cherry-picking a few sources, and at least get the numbers right. The comment, "something is a little fishy" insinuates they are lying or got a ringer. If not, what was the intent of that comment. Please explain.

chevymuscle311 · 06-19-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Proven by MM&FF running a 12.6, by mike bowen of powerhouse running multiple sub 12.8 passes including 2 12.7's, a 12.58, etc. bone stock Without the optional brembos (meaning skinnier tires) in the presence of many witnesses including someone on this forum. Proven by an automatic 5.0 running multiple sub-12.8 passes against a bolt on 5th gen camaro owner. Proven by the fact that the 3v gt was a mid 13 second car and the 5.0 is making nearly 100rwhp more consistently with even more aggressive gearing. You're right, numbers don't lie. You just have to look at the whole picture instead of cherry-picking a few sources, and at least get the numbers right.

Get out with the MM&FF crap. Im sure Super Chevy can pull some magic numbers out of an SS too

THE EVIL TW1N · 06-19-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevymuscle311

Get out with the MM&FF crap. Im sure Super Chevy can pull some magic numbers out of an SS too

just wondering, but why havent they?? MM&FF is an honest publication that isnt scared to point out the flaws in the mustang.

also, i remember reading the times people were running at the Camaro Fest in their 5th gens and i didnt even get a sense that people were running what the mags ran in them.

Mags usually only get the car for a few hours and they might or might not have a chance to run them in excellent weather and track conditions.

Motor Trend ran a camaro within a tenth of the best mag runs published so what makes you think theyre biased against it????

chevymuscle311 · 06-19-2010, 05:25 PM

As it turns out the company that owns Motor Trend also owns MM&FF, 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords, Mustang & Fords and Mustang Monthly.

chevymuscle311 · 06-19-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

just wondering, but why havent they??

They may have, I havent looked.

2SSARMY · 06-19-2010, 05:31 PM

Not again

THE EVIL TW1N · 06-19-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevymuscle311

As it turns out the company that owns Motor Trend also owns MM&FF, 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords, Mustang & Fords and Mustang Monthly.

oh no! they must own Sacramento Raceway too since the stock Mustang trapped 114-115mph there!!! the conspiracy continues.....dun dun dun!!!

KungFuHamster · 06-19-2010, 05:35 PM

sigh.

ive never seen so much bench racing in my LIFE. seriously. not to mention conspiracy theorists.

Sax1031 · 06-19-2010, 05:36 PM

I find it kind of funny the chevy guys hating on MM&FF now. They got the fasted time out of a stock 4th gen, a time many chevy fans heralded. Now they are just a bias publication.

And the major mag drivers suck ass. We have seen the Motor Trend times proven by multiple private owned GTs.

06-19-2010, 03:25 PM	#1
chevymuscle311 Drives: 2SS/RS- IOM w/ CG Rallies Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Clovis Posts: 306	So what's really up with MotorTrend??? Car and Driver= 13.2 http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...07775a541f.pdf Road and Track= 13.2 http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...emium_data.pdf Edmunds= 13.0 (originally 13.3) http://www.edmunds.com/ford/mustang/2011/testdrive.html Motor Trend= 12.7 Something is a little fishy. And before the Mustang owners get their panties bunched up they all had the 3.73 gears and pirelli p-zero's Last edited by chevymuscle311; 06-19-2010 at 04:23 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PWA "The Lounge"	DGthe3	Off-topic Discussions	143773	11-06-2010 12:00 PM
they killed the thread/so here is another	2cnd chance	Chevy Camaro vs...	67	09-09-2009 04:12 AM
Camaro Handling, Shut up already.	Dan3	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	160	09-07-2009 12:11 AM
Camaro SS vs. 2009 WRX	blinkme323	Chevy Camaro vs...	162	09-05-2009 02:54 PM
5th Gen Camaro - Better Drag or Road Course Car?	ShnOmac	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	11	09-04-2009 12:09 AM

06-19-2010, 04:12 PM	#2
8cd03gro Drives: 2005 STi corn fed Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,997	The edmunds link you posted shows 1/4 Mile (sec @ mph)13.0 @110.6 not 13.1. You also decided to leave out MM&FF's 12.6. MT just ran quicker in theirs. That's what happens.

06-19-2010, 04:48 PM	#4
8cd03gro Drives: 2005 STi corn fed Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,997	Maybe your post with your little typo. It's been proven time and time again that the new gt is easily capable of high 12's, but you are insinuating that MT lied or used a ringer to run a 12.7. If the car is capable of it, which it is, what's the problem? Some other mags ran slower. I've also seen a 13.4 out of a camaro ss in some of those rags. So car and driver's 13.0 must be "fishy."

06-19-2010, 05:08 PM	#6
8cd03gro Drives: 2005 STi corn fed Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,997	Proven by MM&FF running a 12.6 in terrible conditions, by mike bowen of powerhouse running multiple sub 12.8 passes including 2 12.7's, a 12.58, etc. bone stock Without the optional brembos (meaning skinnier tires) in the presence of many witnesses including someone on this forum. Proven by an automatic 5.0 running multiple sub-12.8 passes against a bolt on 5th gen camaro owner. Proven by the fact that the 3v gt was a mid 13 second car and the 5.0 is making about 100rwhp more consistently with even more aggressive gearing. You're right, numbers don't lie. You just have to look at the whole picture instead of cherry-picking a few sources, and at least get the numbers right. The comment, "something is a little fishy" insinuates they are lying or got a ringer. If not, what was the intent of that comment. Please explain.

06-19-2010, 05:25 PM	#9
chevymuscle311 Drives: 2SS/RS- IOM w/ CG Rallies Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Clovis Posts: 306	As it turns out the company that owns Motor Trend also owns MM&FF, 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords, Mustang & Fords and Mustang Monthly.

06-19-2010, 05:31 PM	#11
2SSARMY Account Suspended Drives: 2SS/RS Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 1,125	Not again

06-19-2010, 05:35 PM	#13
KungFuHamster Drives: Black SS Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 454	sigh. ive never seen so much bench racing in my LIFE. seriously. not to mention conspiracy theorists.

06-19-2010, 05:36 PM	#14
Sax1031 Drives: 2000 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Elgin,SC Posts: 2,707	I find it kind of funny the chevy guys hating on MM&FF now. They got the fasted time out of a stock 4th gen, a time many chevy fans heralded. Now they are just a bias publication. And the major mag drivers suck ass. We have seen the Motor Trend times proven by multiple private owned GTs.