[FastCarFanBoy]

Car and Driver also uses the Racelogic VBOX in their testing it’s a very accurate piece of equipment. Cars.com went 11.98 per the video.

Carry on with your attempt to discredit the run.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Here is more info on the data logger they used: https://www.vboxautomotive.co.uk/ind...-iisx#overview

Again, it says they used it for the 0-60 of 3.99. But they didn't indicate if they used it to get the 11.9 quarter mile. And they didn't say if it was an 11.90, 11.95, 11.99 or anything other than "11.9". Maybe they couldn't break 11s using the actual track equipment so they had to use the data logger, lol!!

I sent the Editor an email. Maybe he’ll answer

The Mustang test all were centered on getting “a” time. Evan and Cars.com. The Camaro was so far ahead in 2016 that, that wasn’t the case then

[FastCarFanBoy]

What he will probably say is that in order to maintain accuracy in the testing they use the same equipment to test all the cars rather than relying on different equipment and different race tracks.

[hotlap]

Let’s hope we get the A10 GT and SS out for a test together this fall. Same day didn’t go very well for the GT in 18

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Car and Driver also uses the Racelogic VBOX in their testing it’s a very accurate piece of equipment. Cars.com went 11.98 per the video.

Carry on with your attempt to discredit the run.

Do forums allow runs not done at the drag strip on fast list?

I’m sure the car is capable but that kinda sucks. They should test cars at the track. Especially if they do a head to head.

Different tracks and consistency is bs excuse. Different days and locations will have different results with a vbox as well. A track is the only legit way. I don’t know any real drag racers who walk around talking about their vbox times. If they did they would get laughed at.

I understand that they test everything with it so it’s fair comparison somewhat.... still kinda weak sauce imo

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Car and Driver also uses the Racelogic VBOX in their testing it’s a very accurate piece of equipment. Cars.com went 11.98 per the video.

Carry on with your attempt to discredit the run.

Did they use it when testing the Camaro and Mustang? Or are you just saying that at some point they have used it?

And I didn't watch the video. And yes I will discredit the run. If you want people who will blindly praise it and take everything at word then M6G will do that for you. I read the article and that particular part of the story stood out to me and so I brought it up. That equipment is accurate to within a certain degree. And even then that degree is based on using the equipment several times and comparing the results. I'm not sure if it is accurate as measured against track equipment which uses sensors that start/stop time when you cross them. And for the record, even if they have used this equipment in the past I still question it's reliability when they are "11.98". Especially since GPS equipment is know to be off by 2-5 tenths in comparison to track runs.

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Do forums allow runs not done at the drag strip on fast list?

I’m sure the car is capable but that kinda sucks. They should test cars at the track. Especially if they do a head to head.

Different tracks and consistency is bs excuse. Different days and locations will have different results with a vbox as well. A track is the only legit way. I don’t know any real drag racers who walk around talking about their vbox times. If they did they would get laughed at.

I understand that they test everything with it so it’s fair comparison somewhat.... still kinda weak sauce imo

To be fair they were at the track...they just used the data logger equipment instead of the track timers. Why I don't know. Perhaps it was closed and they just rented use of the actual track itself. Maybe they couldn't get the 11.98 using the track timers. I don't know. But you are indeed correct that if someone went around using data log equipment to brag about their times they'd get laughed at. At least they would have been laughed at. Now that it seems the only way the GT is in the 11s is thru use of GPS equipment I bet the Mustang guys will allow it from now on...but only for the Mustang. HAHA!!

If they used it consistently and the results fell in a specific time and you could still say it was within the accuracy then I would give credit. But it seems that an 11.98 could be actually still in the 12s based on the accuracy of this equipment so to me it is too close to call it definite.

[ULTRAZLS1]

I see. Well that’s a little better

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

What he will probably say is that in order to maintain accuracy in the testing they use the same equipment to test all the cars rather than relying on different equipment and different race tracks.

It’s interesting that Cars.com also had the press hero run when the Hellcat came out. In that instance they used the track equipment as they were “Chasing 11.2”

Motor Trend: 11.7 sec @ 125.4 mph
Car & Driver: 11.7 sec @ 126 mph
Hot Rod: 12.50 sec @ 117 mph

Cars.com: 11.41 sec @ 122 mph

https://www.cars.com/articles/2014/0...-to-the-strip/

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Did they use it when testing the Camaro and Mustang? Or are you just saying that at some point they have used it?

And I didn't watch the video. And yes I will discredit the run. If you want people who will blindly praise it and take everything at word then M6G will do that for you. I read the article and that particular part of the story stood out to me and so I brought it up. That equipment is accurate to within a certain degree. And even then that degree is based on using the equipment several times and comparing the results. I'm not sure if it is accurate as measured against track equipment which uses sensors that start/stop time when you cross them. And for the record, even if they have used this equipment in the past I still question it's reliability when they are "11.98". Especially since GPS equipment is know to be off by 2-5 tenths in comparison to track runs.

To be fair they were at the track...they just used the data logger equipment instead of the track timers. Why I don't know. Perhaps it was closed and they just rented use of the actual track itself. Maybe they couldn't get the 11.98 using the track timers. I don't know. But you are indeed correct that if someone went around using data log equipment to brag about their times they'd get laughed at. At least they would have been laughed at. Now that it seems the only way the GT is in the 11s is thru use of GPS equipment I bet the Mustang guys will allow it from now on...but only for the Mustang. HAHA!!

If they used it consistently and the results fell in a specific time and you could still say it was within the accuracy then I would give credit. But it seems that an 11.98 could be actually still in the 12s based on the accuracy of this equipment so to me it is too close to call it definite.

you should check out the claimed accuracy of the VBox, Racelogic isn’t known for making garbage. Most guys at the track would laugh, but most guys at the track are also dumber than a bag of hammers so it’s not relevant in terms of the validity of the data.

[torqueaddict]

You can continue to deny all you want, but the data is in the forums. Only 1 11.9, all the rest low to mid 12s. The 2018 Mustang GT, is a low 12s car like the SS. And so far, the SS has put up more high 11s than the 2018 Mustang bone stock. That's in the real world, not some mag with an agenda chasing a number with questionable equipment.

And I'll bet my life, that if you line up a Zl1 and a 2018 GT on the same strip, same day, the GT will get a severe beat down by at least a second, unless the ZL1 driver fell asleep at the wheel.

[kttxz06]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

You can continue to deny all you want, but the data is in the forums. Only 1 11.9, all the rest low to mid 12s. The 2018 Mustang GT, is a low 12s car like the SS. And so far, the SS has put up more high 11s than the 2018 Mustang bone stock. That's in the real world, not some mag with an agenda chasing a number with questionable equipment.

And I'll bet my life, that if you line up a Zl1 and a 2018 GT on the same strip, same day, the GT will get a severe beat down by at least a second, unless the ZL1 driver fell asleep at the wheel.

Impossible. The GT is the holy grail is only .4 sec behind the Zl1. Meaning, it's a drivers race. cough cough.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

you should check out the claimed accuracy of the VBox, Racelogic isn’t known for making garbage. Most guys at the track would laugh, but most guys at the track are also dumber than a bag of hammers so it’s not relevant in terms of the validity of the data.

Umm, I posted the link with the data specs on it which included their accuracy reports. And I never said they make garbage. But just like with aftermarket company HP claims, you can't always take a manufacturer at their word when they're the ones doing the testing of their own equipment. Of course the accuracy is gonna be off the charts, lol. But you can't deny that GPS, no matter how accurate it is, is not as accurate as using track equipment. It could have been 2 tenths off for all we know.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Umm, I posted the link with the data specs on it which included their accuracy reports. And I never said they make garbage. But just like with aftermarket company HP claims, you can't always take a manufacturer at their word when they're the ones doing the testing of their own equipment. Of course the accuracy is gonna be off the charts, lol. But you can't deny that GPS, no matter how accurate it is, is not as accurate as using track equipment. It could have been 2 tenths off for all we know.

No two tracks are equal either, they too can vary quite widely, even in similar DA. That's like me saying I dont believe X time unless it was ran at Sacramento Raceway.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

No two tracks are equal either, they too can vary quite widely, even in similar DA. That's like me saying I dont believe X time unless it was ran at Sacramento Raceway.

Variations between different tracks is hardly an argument in this case. Running an 11.98 using timers and sensors on a track is very different from using GPS equipment. That 11.98 (and the 3.99) certainly falls within their margin of error. And it is not the accepted standard. It seems that every time the GT does something there is some sort of avenue they use that is alternative to the standard. And even then it just barely makes the mark. 3.99 and 11.98, lol!! I'd like to see some testing with the GPS in comparison to the track timers to see exactly how much they vary.

And even funnier, someone called out Ford that their 0-6 of under 4 seconds would be a 3.99, lol!! I think they said that if it was a significant amount then Ford would have said "0-60 in X" but since they said "0-60 in under 4 seconds" that must mean they barely made it, lol!! Who was that?? Turns out they were right on the nose.