The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by ssump29

This is only what we know of. They are plently running great times that aren't on this site...

Where I race I have be seeing stock SS's run 12.7 on a constant basis and I have also seen stock 2010 GT's running 13 flat and 13.1, but I know they aren't on these forums.. So be careful how you state things as facts.. Just let it be known that's as far as YOU know.

which is why its crazy to try to compare what someone across the coutry ran and crown him (or her) the fastest car. Theres a lot of fast tracks on the east coast and midwest and a lot of fast dynos in texas.........

[REEFBLUE93]

Originally Posted by mjf6866

THANK YOU. finally someone gets it!

LMAO!! That's what everyone has been saying, just not wording it like you wanted. Out of all 3 cars, it's still really slow

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

which is why its crazy to try to compare what someone across the coutry ran and crown him (or her) the fastest car. Theres a lot of fast tracks on the east coast and midwest and a lot of fast dynos in texas.........

EXACTLY. Give both cars credit, from what I have seen so far a camaro can get as low as 12.5 while the limited not available 11 GT can get down to 12.7, which in my mind says it can get lower. There really is no argument here but yet a couple people here still bicker.

But like you said the question will be what can YOU the driver run not what someone else is running. I expect to see average drivers and all the benchracers to not even come close to times like this, otherwise they wouldn't be bickering because they would know what they can do and wouldn't need to defend other drivers who live for others results.

[mjf6866]

Originally Posted by REEFBLUE93

LMAO!! That's what everyone has been saying, just not wording it like you wanted. Out of all 3 cars, it's still really slow

when did you change your mind, reef?

[mjf6866]

most of you guys should know i'm not one to start "forum wars" or any kind of trouble for that matter, but i'm posting this to show what the R/T is capable of for the few that still view it as the slow turd thats published in the mags.

again, i'm not trying to start trouble and i'm not saying this is how it would have gone down if they lined up again...you get my point!

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by mjf6866

most of you guys should know i'm not one to start "forum wars" or any kind of trouble for that matter, but i'm posting this to show what the R/T is capable of for the few that still view it as the slow turd thats published in the mags.

again, i'm not trying to start trouble and i'm not saying this is how it would have gone down if they lined up again...you get my point!

I get everything you saying. The R/T isn't a turd just not as fast as the other two. And that video is terrible, thats all driver error in that video. Nothing to do with the cars. Look at how the driver of the camaro bogs the car down after the launch, it looks like he hit the rev limiter.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by mjf6866

most of you guys should know i'm not one to start "forum wars" or any kind of trouble for that matter, but i'm posting this to show what the R/T is capable of for the few that still view it as the slow turd thats published in the mags.

again, i'm not trying to start trouble and i'm not saying this is how it would have gone down if they lined up again...you get my point!

what were the average Camaros running at CamaroFeast?

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Stew

Ah, but what mags have actualy tested and automatic R/T? Just thought I would throw that out there, carry on

When the 2008 SRTs came out, they were auto only. The mags got 13.1-13.2s out of those. So I seriously doubt stock R/T autos are just as fast as an SRT auto.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by mjf6866

could it be that it is just harder to launch? that is a fault of the car that can be overcome to a degree with a new set of rubber.

So you go and drop $31-38k on a brand new muscle car, and on top of that you have to go buy a new set of tires to get it to perform as it should?

[mjf6866]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

So you go and drop $31-38k on a brand new muscle car, and on top of that you have to go buy a new set of tires to get it to perform as it should?

i agree with you 100%. dodge dropped the ball there. but hey, tires wear out and when they do you gotta buy them anyway. i wont get good ones till i wear the current ones down.

[mjf6866]

Originally Posted by ssump29

I get everything you saying. The R/T isn't a turd just not as fast as the other two. And that video is terrible, thats all driver error in that video. Nothing to do with the cars. Look at how the driver of the camaro bogs the car down after the launch, it looks like he hit the rev limiter.

i hear ya, drivers make the difference. he beats 2 others, but unfortunatly i dont have vids.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

When the 2008 SRTs came out, they were auto only. The mags got 13.1-13.2s out of those. So I seriously doubt stock R/T autos are just as fast as an SRT auto.

Ah, but the R/Ts are running those times, it is a fact there isn't much a difference between the R/T and SRT in the 1/4 mile on average.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by mjf6866

i agree with you 100%. dodge dropped the ball there. but hey, tires wear out and when they do you gotta buy them anyway. i wont get good ones till i wear the current ones down.

Not to mention you can get a summer tire on the R/T for 2010 (STP), also something interesting, turns out the 10s, even with the 6 speed, have Bilstien shocks instead of the self leveling Nivomats, don't know if that makes a difference or now, guess it depends on how they effect weight distribution and wheelhop.

[2SSARMY]

If there's one thing I got out of this whole thread, it's that Tomcats Challenger looks pretty badass.