The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[Sax1031]

Deathchill it really depends. Generally a reduction of a tenth in the 60ft will reduce quarter mile times by 1.5-2.0 tenths, in my experience.

The first 60ft is the most important by far.

[Sax1031]

Had a 2.1 60ft time on the run. Room for improvement.

[RJ's SS]

Faster ,, Slower,, heavier,, lighter,, all season tires,, summer tires, better driver, grandma driving,

You know when it comes right down to the mustang vs the SS...

Your welcome ford drivers

We are glad we could help you get a muscle car with enough horsepower to truely be called that. Its just funny that ford being the best at everything "as we have all been told" had to have GM stomp it in the pony car arena to get you the car you really wanted!

As Forrest would say.... "Thats all I got to say about that!"

RJ

[DeathChill]

Please don't start that. Without the Mustang we wouldn't have the Camaro. It's a symbiotic relationship in some aspects.

[SWAT 79]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Nothing. In that case the camaro is still the fastest. It has run a 12.58.

Not at all fair because we havent got any private owner times yet from the mustang...but it is what it is at the moment.

I was implying magazine times....of course private owners are going to have better times.


And the 12.58 was uncorrected, correct? (no pun intended)

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

Deathchill it really depends. Generally a reduction of a tenth in the 60ft will reduce quarter mile times by 1.5-2.0 tenths, in my experience.

The first 60ft is the most important by far.

No that is incorrect. What ever you pick up on the 60' will carry to the end. I.E. 1.9 vs. a 2.1 60' with a 13.3 quarter will equal a 13.1 quarter and likely a 1 MPH drop in trap speed.

This factors with no loss of traction from shifting. If there is a loss of traction shifting then that formula is out the window and it is just a best guess.

[Sax1031]

I am just going by my experiences I can dig out hundreds of timeslips for you.

Generally a tenth off the 60ft was worth more than a tenth off the quarter for me.

[Sax1031]

The trap speed thing is a wash also. I did generally see lower trap speeds with better 60fts but nothing anywhere near a 1 mph drop.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I am just going by my experiences I can dig out hundreds of timeslips for you.

Generally a tenth off the 60ft was worth more than a tenth off the quarter for me.

I'd be happy to dig mine out too. I have a good 1" thick stack when I used to race my Mustang. (which was a 11 sec street driven car)

Neither a 2011 Mustang GT or a 2010 Camaro SS are laying down enough HP stock to make the 1.5 - 2 tenths ET you are describing by reducing the 60' by 1 tenth. Gonna need more HP for that to happen.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

The trap speed thing is a wash also. I did generally see lower trap speeds with better 60fts but nothing anywhere near a 1 mph drop.

[Sax1031]

My car never made the hp either.

274rwhp on motor. Was good for 7.60s in the 1/8th though.

On the gas that was a different story.

Generally on my motor runs I would see a 1.5-2.0 change in 1/4 mile ET if I got a tenth reduction in the 60ft.

The mph would generally fluctuate by about .5mph from run to run.

On gas the 60ft was a little more important.

[Sax1031]

Even my 2002 GSX-R1000 behaved in the same way.

[wbt]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Back OT - I think the times posted on the run are very respectable. Give the motor a few thousand miles to break in and it just may run a 13.0 or 12.9 stock. Can't knock that.

[Sax1031]

Probably so.