Mustangs................

[Lydon]

Originally Posted by SUPRBAD

6.2L 426HP > 5.0L 412HP

I'm not sure why they need to.

I agree - step up what?

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by 1320junkie

Come to the fest inspect the cars and witnes the runs..all there is to it


the party was great

I'd be there if I could


Put down a sick time Junkie

[Legend]

I like the new styling other than the rear of the car...a power boost is much needed for the Mustang too...they had the market for years and sold tons upon tons of them but with the other manufactures now coming out with the Camaro and if Dodge does step up the Challenger...then the Mustang should fit right in.

I welcome the challenge...I'm afraid it won't last long!

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by rayhawk

Since you know so much, why don't you tell us how much it will weigh so we can quote you later?

Because i am not dumb enough to assume and post all over the internet how sure i am that this will happen with this and bla bla bla... I KNOW FOR SURE it won't gain for than 150lbs and you can quote me on that. that's about the only thing i am sure enough in saying. how some of you guys are quoting 300+ lbs is beyond me i can only say that it's wishful thinking on your part. ehh that's how the internet be's i guess.

[FirstLSK]

YES !!!!!

Finally a thread with some speculation in it. I miss the gool ol' days before we had Number3 and we all started getting our Camaros.


My speculative statement -- if history repeats itself, then Ford will bump the mustang just enough to be a drivers race.

... And while I may respect what Ford is doing performance-wise, they have a long way to go when it comes to aesthetics(in my opinion). Changing the headlights and tail lights won't cut it. You can polish a turd all you want to...... it's still an ugly turd.

Now, if they would retro the 1966 Shelby Cobra, I would eat those aesthetic words. As it stands.....


.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

YES !!!!!

Finally a thread with some speculation in it. I miss the gool ol' days before we had Number3 and we all started getting our Camaros.


My speculative statement -- if history repeats itself, then Ford will bump the mustang just enough to be a drivers race.

... And while I may respect what Ford is doing performance-wise, they have a long way to go when it comes to aesthetics(in my opinion). Changing the headlights and tail lights won't cut it. You can polish a turd all you want to...... it's still an ugly turd.

Now, if they would retro the 1966 Shelby Cobra, I would eat those aesthetic words. As it stands.....


.

to each his own bro.. pucker up... lol


aesthetics are subjective...

while that rear may look "hot" to you, to me it looks like it's holding something in and can't find a bathroom. the front is nice though.

[Jinx]

Cant even get christmas off, much less the fest.

[garagelogic]

I could be wrong, but I think what he was trying to say is that you do not get the same kind of gains with bolt-on parts on the 3v 4.6 as you do with the LS series of engines. Any engine has room for improvement and usually shows power increases from simple, time-tested additions such as a CAI, tune, headers, etc.

However, in my experience with the LSx engines, changing H/C/I on those cars makes a huge difference in output whereas making the exact same changes on the 3v 4.6 is not only going to cost you more, it's not going to have as much of an impact.

You can argue about it until you are blue in the face but, in the end, GM and Ford have simply chosen two different routes to get to the same place. Neither is the wrong way, just different.

[SWAT 79]

No I'm not saying the 4.6 is a bad mod motor (I hope not I'm getting a mustang soon), but it doesn't respond nearly as well to bolt on's as the ls motors do, which is why a tune is needed, and usually makes up the difference.

[Ninjak]

Guess I need to read the Fest sticky. If its in Georgia, at a time I can take off, I may just make the run. Would be a good time to keep heading to Atlanta and visit some good friends.....I keep telling them I'm comming.

Only problem for me is that is a stretch for DR's..No way I could run on the track with my street tires..Need to figure that out..

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by syr74

I'm still not buying the 12.6 second run. While not as much of a regular as I once was I still spend a fair share of time down at the strip, and I've never seen anybody run faster than the 12.8-12.9 second range in a stock SS, and as far as I know neither have any of the guys I hang around with and several of them are serious GM diehards. (I'll double check) If the 12.6 gets backed up at the Fest and said run passes the sniff test I'll buy it, and that well may happen, but until then I'll remain a skeptic.

I don't see why the 12.6 would be all that skeptical considering the fact that some of the first 12.8 runs were done in high DA's that corrected to low 12.7's. I think it's possible to get 12.6 stock, but the amount of skill and perfect driving required to get there is pretty considerable.

However, NHRAStocker said he's going back to run with his regular air and oil filters.

He also happened to be running against a Challenger owner who looked over the engine bay (as I understand it) and saw no aftermarket stuff. Obviously a tune could be hidden but the Challenger owner believed NHRAStocker and there would be little reason to lie if he's willing to admit he changed the oil as well as the air and oil filters.

NHRAStocker also backed it up by getting two 12.6 runs, so it wasn't some odd fluke that can't be replicated. However, I definitely get the skepticism.

The Camaro is very capable. I see great drivers down here easily breaking the 13 sec with there's and min mods. The same I see Stangs breaking 13's with just a few more mods. And no, they are all not F/I. Sure, I'm F/I and can run a 12.2/6 on a good night, but heh I was lazy :P I took the easy way to mods

Yeah, both cars are extremely capable, but 2010 vs. 2010 goes to the Camaro for the 1/4 mile. However, 2011 is going to be interesting.

This reminds me: is the 2010 Camaro going to have an extended run into 2011? When are they going to switch to the 2011 model year?


EDIT: Also, yes it is stupid to use the fastest recorded time for regular comparison, as I think the average fastest time (probably 12.8-12.9ish for the SS, probably 13.2-13.3ish for the GT) is a better way to compare.

[DropTheGloves]

IBTL.

on a side note...

it's hard to find a car bone stock. At least a sports car.

you might wonder what bone stock is, and that is where nothing on the car has been messed with. I have seen the SVT Cobra (03-04) run 12.4-12.6's all day bone stock. Can the SS run better than a 12.8 bone stock? Don't know.

[DropTheGloves]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

I don't see why the 12.6 would be all that skeptical considering the fact that some of the first 12.8 runs were done in high DA's that corrected to low 12.7's. I think it's possible to get 12.6 stock, but the amount of skill and perfect driving required to get there is pretty considerable.

However, NHRAStocker said he's going back to run with his regular air and oil filters.

He also happened to be running against a Challenger owner who looked over the engine bay (as I understand it) and saw no aftermarket stuff. Obviously a tune could be hidden but the Challenger owner believed NHRAStocker and there would be little reason to lie if he's willing to admit he changed the oil as well as the air and oil filters.

NHRAStocker also backed it up by getting two 12.6 runs, so it wasn't some odd fluke that can't be replicated. However, I definitely get the skepticism.


Yeah, both cars are extremely capable, but 2010 vs. 2010 goes to the Camaro for the 1/4 mile. However, 2011 is going to be interesting.

This reminds me: is the 2010 Camaro going to have an extended run into 2011? When are they going to switch to the 2011 model year?


EDIT: Also, yes it is stupid to use the fastest recorded time for regular comparison, as I think the average fastest time (probably 12.8-12.9ish for the SS, probably 13.2-13.3ish for the GT) is a better way to compare.

Try more like 13.1-13.4 with the average driver with the SS. To compare the 2011 GT times, would be ridiculous, seeing as it's not even out yet. If their engines are anywhere close to being as strong as the 03-04 terminators, people are going to be in for a surprise.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by DropTheGloves

Try more like 13.1-13.4 with the average driver with the SS. To compare the 2011 GT times, would be ridiculous, seeing as it's not even out yet. If their engines are anywhere close to being as strong as the 03-04 terminators, people are going to be in for a surprise.

I meant the average faster times (as I said). I didn't mean the 2011, I meant the 2010 as I was quoting Ninjak, who was talking about the 2010.