The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[chevymuscle311]

Originally Posted by assasinator

ill be running mine very soon. delivery in two weeks. my car is being built as we talk. enough talk.

Take it bone stock straight to the track with 91 octane gas and prove me wrong.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by chevymuscle311

According to the fastest timeslip post some SS's have run 12.5's stock, so you might have a 1 in 50,000 shot of getting a GT to run sub 12.7 stock.

Please don't compare an uncorrected hero run to a magazine time. If you want to compare hero runs, wait 6 months for a broken in 5.0 to run in perfect conditions by a driver who has learned how to get the best possible time out of it. Don't use a magaizne time.

[chevymuscle311]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Please don't compare an uncorrected hero run to a magazine time. If you want to compare hero runs, wait 6 months for a broken in 5.0 to run in perfect conditions by a driver who has learned how to get the best possible time out of it. Don't use a magaizne time.

I would never quote anything from Motor Trend lol

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by chevymuscle311

According to the fastest timeslip post some SS's have run 12.5's stock, so you might have a 1 in 50,000 shot of getting a GT to run sub 12.7 stock.

Quoted, thanks.

FYI: (1) ONE, SS has run 12.5 stock, and (1) ONE, SS has run 12.6 stock.

We will talk more in a few weeks though.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Two guys have run 12.6 stock. One did not count because it was a red light. And it is this web site.

You act like the world revolves around this little forum. I am sure plenty of people across the country have run sub 13's.

I think its great that you pretend to be some kind of camaro fan but defend the mustang every chance you get. Just seems a little weird No hard feelings

And anyone can say anything online. Someone who runs a 12.5 in the camaro could be lying for all we know and vice versa. Bottom line...the cars are VERY CLOSE...and these arguments will never end. I feel good that I have a 6.2 under the hood...I wont deny that.

[chevymuscle311]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...drives/4350320

Looks like Popular Mechanics got a test drive as well:

Equipped with the wonderfully precise short-throw manual shifter, the V8 will get you from zero to 60 mph in 4.9 seconds, and the V6 will do it in 5.5. Both will do a quarter mile in the 13-second range. Despite the presence of Brembo brakes, the GT still took an extra 4 feet to slow from 60 mph compared to the V6 car, due to the GT's 3605-lb. curb weight, which is approximately 150 lbs heavier.


Even though it doesn't quote a specific 1/4 time, its not the 4.4 0-60 that MT claimed to have pulled.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Two guys have run 12.6 stock. One did not count because it was a red light. And it is this web site.

And you act like the world revolves around this little forum. I am sure plenty of people across the country have run sub 13's.

I think its great that you pretend to be some kind of camaro fan but defend the mustang every chance you get. Just seems a little weird No hard feelings

And anyone can say anything online. Someone who runs a 12.5 in the camaro oculd be lying for all we know and vice versa. bottom line...the cars are VERY CLOSE...and these arguments will never end. I feel good that I have a 6.2 under the hood...I wont deny that.

It's called free will, also free thinking.
and acceptance. that's all.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Unfair

It's called free will, also free thinking.
and acceptance. that's all.

Yep. And its strange that you still defend the mustang given the info we have so far. The typical camaro fan would at least give the camaro some more credit in this given situation. I deduct that you are a mustang fan in disguise lol

[chevymuscle311]

Originally Posted by meanmike

It's also not the time they got for the Camaro. So whats your point?

My point is PM numbers for the Camaro are 4.9 0-60 13.0 1/4
Their numbers for the GT 4.9 0-60 1/4 "in the 13 sec range"

Not the spanking all the Mustang owners think they should have. Oh wait you just edited your post out cause you probably saw that. LOL

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by chevymuscle311

My point is PM numbers for the Camaro are 4.9 0-60 13.0 1/4
Their numbers for the GT 4.9 0-60 1/4 "in the 13 sec range"

Not the spanking all the Mustang owners think they should have

I deleted my comment because I misread what you posted however I haven't read any posts saying the Mustang was going to spank the Camaro

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by little_bank_robber

Hi there ULTRAZLS1! How are you?

Looks like you're adding some nice mods to the car. How's it running?

Take care.

Im doing good.

It is running great. 435 rwhp on a mustang dyno with bolt ons

I love the car more every day. Thanks for asking.

[Unfair]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Yep. And its strange that you still defend the mustang given the info we have so far. The typical camaro fan would at least give the camaro some more credit in this given situation. I deduct that you are a mustang fan in disguise lol

Deduce*

Fortunately I'm not concerned with such things as what people I don't know think about me personally.

[BlackieRay]

So both of these cars meet at the track. They race a few times and on car loses more races than the other. It's probably the first time in the history of the great rivalry that nobody will be able to blame the car for their loss. You can't blame the car anymore. The race goes to the best driver.

And the driver is going to be the last one to admit he sucks.

[SWAT 79]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Never said it didnt count.

Why is a test showing a faster time for the mustang any more significant than one showing a slower one?

Because in this test the camaro had the upgraded tires and brakes, while the mustang had base brakes and all season tires. Very significant, and funny how its ignored that with proper tires, the mustang ran = times.

Ignorance is bliss.