The 2011+ Mustang Thread

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by big hammer

it means that you're a fanboi troll, and everything you say should be taken with a grain of salt.


if someone came in here boasting a 115 trap speed out of a new camaro when all run around 110, i wouldn't believe it either.


and yes, the way alot of l99's run, 110 for one could be on the high side with a couple mild bolt ons. tha car would be lucky to have around 340 rwhp with those mods and who knows how the tune is. l99's are a wild card some run like total garbage and some aren't bad. so to answer your question yes 110 could be high for that car.

whats with the name calling?

i wouldnt believe the 115 trap speeds if i didnt see the timeslips.

also, you act like you know what all the other automatic Mustangs have trapped at......this is the only one we know of so you really dont have much to base it on son.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by BigDan

New 5.0 pick's up 32whp with ARH Headers and x pipe, stock before tuning.

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...20#post1575720

This is what they claim of course; just like the MMR CAI claimed 20 HP but didnt provide it and actually decreased torque!

I await independent tests.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

whats with the name calling?

i wouldnt believe the 115 trap speeds if i didnt see the timeslips.

also, you act like you know what all the other automatic Mustangs have trapped at......this is the only one we know of so you really dont have much to base it on son.

and you act like all mustangs are now to trap 115 there little buddy. which just is not the case. most evidence points to an incorrect trap speed. yet you believe it by being blinded by fanboi-ism. and that's fine. just dont expect everyone to believe this faux-gospel.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by big hammer

and you act like all mustangs are now to trap 115 there little buddy. which just is not the case. most evidence points to an incorrect trap speed. yet you believe it by being blinded by fanboi-ism. and that's fine. just dont expect everyone to believe this faux-gospel.

can you point out where i say that ALL mustangs now trap 115mph or are you just talking out of your ass? Seems youre trying to start a lil something more than anything.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

can you point out where i say that ALL mustangs now trap 115mph or are you just talking out of your ass? Seems youre trying to start a lil something more than anything.

just everytime someone questions the 115 trap speed, the lord and savior of the 5.0 steps in to save the day for the ford fanbois here.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by big hammer

just everytime someone questions the 115 trap speed, the lord and savior of the 5.0 steps in to save the day for the ford fanbois here.

so you have problems with valid counter-arguments and rebuttals i see. Well then stop making rediculous statements and it will all go away

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

so you have problems with valid counter-arguments and rebuttals i see. Well then stop making rediculous statements and it will all go away

you are correct. you do have an issue with valid arguments and reapond with heresay and opinions.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by big hammer

you are correct. you do have an issue with valid arguments and reapond with heresay and opinions.

heresay and opinions? timeslips are proof not opinions.

According to the unofficial fastest list, a stock Camaro has trapped 112mph, is it really that hard for you to believe a car that puts down the same power, has better gearing AND weighs 250lbs less can trap 3mph more? even if it was just that day? hey....it happened! LOL

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

heresay and opinions? timeslips are proof not opinions.

According to the unofficial fastest list, a stock Camaro has trapped 112mph, is it really that hard for you to believe a car that puts down the same power, has better gearing AND weighs 250lbs less can trap 3mph more? even if it was just that day? hey....it happened! LOL

it also has less torque--- and you dont think it odd that one car suddenly traps 4-5 mph faster than all the others?

the timeslip has been under scrutiny because the track in question has been known to show fast speeds. it just doesnt make sense. nobody is questioning the time, just the speed.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by big hammer

it also has less torque--- and you dont think it odd that one car suddenly traps 4-5 mph faster than all the others?

the timeslip has been under scrutiny because the track in question has been known to show fast speeds. it just doesnt make sense. nobody is questioning the time, just the speed.

the less torque is negated by less weight and better torque mutiplication (gearing, i hope you know what that does).

4 or 5 mph faster? closer to 3-4mph faster and according to the official fastest list on this very site, the span of mph's for the camaros are up to 6mph's do we throw out the ones that are more than 4 mph's faster than the slowest ones then????? some of you guys seem to be making up the rules as you go along?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by big hammer

fbodys have done that years ago.

There have only been like 3 and they all had stalled autos, tons of weight reduction and a LOT of bolt ons. Oh and they all happened at least five or six years after production of the ls1 fbodies started. Just to keep things clear.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by big hammer

it also has less torque--- and you dont think it odd that one car suddenly traps 4-5 mph faster than all the others?

the timeslip has been under scrutiny because the track in question has been known to show fast speeds. it just doesnt make sense. nobody is questioning the time, just the speed.

I'm not positive either way, and I agree the trap beams could be spaced improperly on that track, but don't forget that motorweek trapped 116 in a different car on a different day.

[firelife25]

i think this shop is full of shit....when i called them and asked what was done..they told me headers and other bolt-ons weight reductions spray and suspention work...then i call back and they claim different....not to mention they run a 1.5 60ft with a 200shot off the line...then they claim a 1.4 60ft with no spray...i call total bs

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by firelife25

i think this shop is full of shit....when i called them and asked what was done..they told me headers and other bolt-ons weight reductions spray and suspention work...then i call back and they claim different....not to mention they run a 1.5 60ft with a 200shot off the line...then they claim a 1.4 60ft with no spray...i call total bs

I won't say it's total bull, but I want to see other shops results. Apparently the GT500 guys have a bone to pick with them so I want to see if the results are reproducible by other shops before I think about working with them.