Close

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 75 of 75
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The world...
    Posts
    1,331
    Rep Points
    1,202.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    Well that explains quite a bit... (You skipped your trap speeds by the way)

    The 3 series is pretty refined while the Mustang is still a muscle car, albeit one with quite a bit of finesse. Your analogy that the GT500 is designed for straight-line performance is false and your continuing to compare it to a Vette makes no sense. You want to compare a fairly light 2 seat fiberglass sports car with a 4 seat coupe.

    But going back to your overall critique I would argue that if it were geared solely towards straight-line performance it would be faster. Ford could unleash any number of options to accentuate the straight-line speed. Funny you say it can't put the power to the ground yet have never driven the 2013 GT500 which ironically I have recently. Ford did several things to ensure it could as much power to ground as possible like changing the final drive ratio which reduces tq multiplication, they added in a very smart traction control setup, they added launch control and a stout wheel/tire combo.

    The car I drove was a pre production car and was astoundingly fast everywhere, all the time with little issue putting down the power effectively. I was most impressed that jumping on it in 2nd gear didn't produce tons of wheelspin, it hooked and went. I spend about 25 mins in the car with a combo of climbing a very hilly piece of road to some open highway. I came away convinced this is a sleeper as many people will not believe what it is. Its brute force and some folks don't handle that well while others prefer a velvet hammer approach like a M3. The issue here that the car is ALL about the performance per dollar and then creature comfort. So sure you can get an all glass roof, navi, stereo upgrades and recaro seats as well. But its meant to be silly fast in most any circumstance its the most well rounded Mustang to date.

    Again I say to each their own, I drive a 2011 3 series and I have 2 Mustangs I like most anything thats fast but I couldn't disagree more with your assertion
    My friend, why you asked me to compare my car to this car, I have no idea... I simply told you what my car was good at and what it excels at, the comparison is pointless anyways. No, I have not driven the 2013, but I have driven the 2012 and a lot of previous mustangs... I see that you love the mustang, you own 2 and you will defend it no matter what... I am speaking off experience here as well as what I've seen as far as numbers are concerned. The 2012 GT500 went mid 12's in the 1/4 with a Supercharged 540 HP engine as evidenced by a few magazines as did the 5.0 and the Boss. Yes, there is a difference in trap speeds as the power of the car is increased but the minute time differences between each of these Mustangs tell me very directly how ineffectively they use the power.


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    Yep you're nuts bro... Trap speeds tend to be a clear indicator of HP and traction. I know several 12 secs cars that all run 12.5-12.7 but trap anywhere from 104 to 111mph. 12.7 at 104 is traction vs 111mph is power. On the street from say a roll it would be clear the car trapping 111mph would likely be faster. Its got the power where the other car has a hole shot.

    Seriously bro you can't ignore the obvious here. In any case I can say my 95 GTS trapped 118mph on a 95 degree day spinning wildly on street tires and running a 13.2. Do you think if I run up on you on the highway in your 335 that you won't get walked? Yet your car ran a faster time that my car right. Numbers are not everything as you mentioned but usually they have a strong meaning. IMO
    Absolutely correct... I've done my share of dragging and know exactly what the difference in traps and ET's. Exactly as you mentioned... if you ran up to me on the HWY moving at high speeds, that right there already proves me point. My point is simple... this may be a very fast car but I certainly hope it can properly use that power because with 650 Hp that car should be going mid to high 10's although with that much TQ it may be thrown all over the place. I could be proved wrong but history is on my side, I hope they have made serious strides in this car (oh and driving on slicks or radials to use the power isn't a step forward).

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Rep Points
    339.4
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    Yes sir... Mark my words Lethal Performance will have one making 1000rwhp on pump by years end.
    Damn how do you hook up that mofo!?
    C63 Tuned Only 60-130 in 8.71

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    My friend, why you asked me to compare my car to this car, I have no idea... I simply told you what my car was good at and what it excels at, the comparison is pointless anyways. No, I have not driven the 2013, but I have driven the 2012 and a lot of previous mustangs... I see that you love the mustang, you own 2 and you will defend it no matter what... I am speaking off experience here as well as what I've seen as far as numbers are concerned. The 2012 GT500 went mid 12's in the 1/4 with a Supercharged 540 HP engine as evidenced by a few magazines as did the 5.0 and the Boss. Yes, there is a difference in trap speeds as the power of the car is increased but the minute time differences between each of these Mustangs tell me very directly how ineffectively they use the power.




    Absolutely correct... I've done my share of dragging and know exactly what the difference in traps and ET's. Exactly as you mentioned... if you ran up to me on the HWY moving at high speeds, that right there already proves me point. My point is simple... this may be a very fast car but I certainly hope it can properly use that power because with 650 Hp that car should be going mid to high 10's although with that much TQ it may be thrown all over the place. I could be proved wrong but history is on my side, I hope they have made serious strides in this car (oh and driving on slicks or radials to use the power isn't a step forward).
    I've owned near 80 vehicles from Ferrari's to Mustangs, I like fast cars first and foremost. I don't need to defend the car it speaks for itself. My issue is that you make very little sense here and you're covering your lack of info or knowledge with a blanket statement. You're overlooking some simple facts here when it comes to these quarter mile and other acceleration numbers. For instance you bemoan the fact that a 2013 GT500 is only a mid 11 sec car out the box. Yet a new ZR1 (since you keep mentioning the Vette) has a near identical time at around 125-126mph, with more HP and less weight??? Based on your statements a car with that much power & tq with lightweight should run well into the low tens in the 1/4 mile. Yet low and behold its a mid 11 sec car out the box. The reasons for that are fairly simple and I will cover two very quickly.

    1. Tires... ANYTHING, with that much HP and without awd will have traction issues period. The stock tires on these cars will only go so far, you will need serious R compound rubber at the very least if not a set of drag radials to accomplish the goal. Thats what the aftermarket is for by the way. It provides a better product to better exploit the performance you already have in many cases.

    2. Surface... A prepped racing surface will always be better than your average street. Holding that much power to the rear wheels is difficult no matter what happens. So with DR's on a prepped track you will have traction issues with this hp level, they just get a bit more manageable.

    I think you're misconception is that if it were some other brand of car that somehow it would magically have more traction. Clearly you've not had a great deal of experience with serious high hp cars driving either the front or rear wheels, you'll learn soon enough that its easy to overpower the tires. Even with mega high hp AWD you can experience traction issues in dry weather. The bottom line now whether the Mustang, ZR1 or any other big HP car, traction is the friend you look for and rarely find in abundance.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG Click here to enlarge
    Damn how do you hook up that mofo!?
    Figure a Whipple 3.4 blower, Injectors/Fuel Pumps, Full exhaust and maybe cams with a proper tune.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,276
    Rep Points
    1,583.2
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    My friend if everything was about performance numbers and track times... then standards would be completely different. Even then, this is a car designed as a car meant to go fast in a straight line although it can't seem to do that right out of the box running an 11.7 with 650 hp. I drive a 335i, a car that does everything well... while not explosively quick, it does run a 12.5 in the 1/4 with full creature comforts, luxuries, has impeccable steering response, does not feel like it's about to fall apart and has a decent interior. It does very well for what its designed for and even crosses over pretty well for it is at the drag strip. That mustang cant compare in any of those to me except maybe 1/4 mile times as that is what it was designed... unfortunately from the numbers that I am seeing, it doesn't exactly excel there but instead is merely OK for its power. As I've said, different people have different needs but what is the point of a 650 HP super mustang if it can't use the power in what it's supposed to... there was a guy that ran a bone stock Z06 in 10.9 with far less HP, that is a very well designed car but as you've already stated, it comes down to what each person prefers, I just fail to see the point of another ultra HP mustang that isn't exactly excellent at anything.

    a cts-v can compare however...and price point a loaded 335 is close to the price of a cts-v 55-60k range....the caddy has all the creature comforts, impeccable steering, stupid torque, and doesnt feel like its falling apart....honestly it feels better put together than my old e93 335

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The world...
    Posts
    1,331
    Rep Points
    1,202.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    I've owned near 80 vehicles from Ferrari's to Mustangs, I like fast cars first and foremost. I don't need to defend the car it speaks for itself. My issue is that you make very little sense here and you're covering your lack of info or knowledge with a blanket statement. You're overlooking some simple facts here when it comes to these quarter mile and other acceleration numbers. For instance you bemoan the fact that a 2013 GT500 is only a mid 11 sec car out the box. Yet a new ZR1 (since you keep mentioning the Vette) has a near identical time at around 125-126mph, with more HP and less weight??? Based on your statements a car with that much power & tq with lightweight should run well into the low tens in the 1/4 mile. Yet low and behold its a mid 11 sec car out the box. The reasons for that are fairly simple and I will cover two very quickly.

    1. Tires... ANYTHING, with that much HP and without awd will have traction issues period. The stock tires on these cars will only go so far, you will need serious R compound rubber at the very least if not a set of drag radials to accomplish the goal. Thats what the aftermarket is for by the way. It provides a better product to better exploit the performance you already have in many cases.

    2. Surface... A prepped racing surface will always be better than your average street. Holding that much power to the rear wheels is difficult no matter what happens. So with DR's on a prepped track you will have traction issues with this hp level, they just get a bit more manageable.

    I think you're misconception is that if it were some other brand of car that somehow it would magically have more traction. Clearly you've not had a great deal of experience with serious high hp cars driving either the front or rear wheels, you'll learn soon enough that its easy to overpower the tires. Even with mega high hp AWD you can experience traction issues in dry weather. The bottom line now whether the Mustang, ZR1 or any other big HP car, traction is the friend you look for and rarely find in abundance.
    Traction indeed is key as are the right tires no doubt. The comment about the Zr1 is simply false because that particular car and a Z06 come with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires which are made to go fast on a track that has laps and turns. In fact, both of those hold records on the 'ring, the Mustang comes with tires to do what exactly? To me; a car that needs slicks to use its power properly (especially from the factory is inherently poorly designed). I look forward to seeing what this car can do although I can already predict it will be difficult to drive with those high power levels. I just hope I don't run into those same Mustang fan boys at the track as I did with the 5.0 when it was released (the ones that told me an NA 5.0 can run 10's as well; the part that they fail to mention is that it needs 1000 lbs of weight reduction and slicks).

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ultimateendz Click here to enlarge
    a cts-v can compare however...and price point a loaded 335 is close to the price of a cts-v 55-60k range....the caddy has all the creature comforts, impeccable steering, stupid torque, and doesnt feel like its falling apart....honestly it feels better put together than my old e93 335
    Cts-V is a fantastic car! The only gripe that I have is highly subjective and that is its looks aren't exactly to my tastes.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,276
    Rep Points
    1,583.2
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge

    Cts-V is a fantastic car! The only gripe that I have is highly subjective and that is its looks aren't exactly to my tastes.

    true....people either hate the look or love it....but i love it....and i think when my bigger hood comes in ill love it even more....lol

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    Traction indeed is key as are the right tires no doubt. The comment about the Zr1 is simply false because that particular car and a Z06 come with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires which are made to go fast on a track that has laps and turns. In fact, both of those hold records on the 'ring, the Mustang comes with tires to do what exactly? To me; a car that needs slicks to use its power properly (especially from the factory is inherently poorly designed). I look forward to seeing what this car can do although I can already predict it will be difficult to drive with those high power levels. I just hope I don't run into those same Mustang fan boys at the track as I did with the 5.0 when it was released (the ones that told me an NA 5.0 can run 10's as well; the part that they fail to mention is that it needs 1000 lbs of weight reduction and slicks).
    You just keep putting out bad info...

    1. The ZR1 and Z06 respectively have OPTIONAL cup tires, then again so does my 328XI M Sport but thats not the point. In either case they have set lap records on the ring with and without the tires.

    2. You've got be just plain old dumb to say you need to drop 1000lbs to go tens in a Mustang. I mean really bro???

    3. I think you're the fanboy or at the very least the hater if you can't see the plain facts that what you think a Mustang is and what they are today differ

    In any case I won't go any further with you, its a bit pointless to show a blind man a picture.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The world...
    Posts
    1,331
    Rep Points
    1,202.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    You just keep putting out bad info...

    1. The ZR1 and Z06 respectively have OPTIONAL cup tires, then again so does my 328XI M Sport but thats not the point. In either case they have set lap records on the ring with and without the tires.

    2. You've got be just plain old dumb to say you need to drop 1000lbs to go tens in a Mustang. I mean really bro???

    3. I think you're the fanboy or at the very least the hater if you can't see the plain facts that what you think a Mustang is and what they are today differ

    In any case I won't go any further with you, its a bit pointless to show a blind man a picture.
    I am ready for a link to a 5.0 running 10's NA, with minimal weight reduction?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Points
    1,330.4
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    I am ready for a link to a 5.0 running 10's NA, with minimal weight reduction?
    Here you go:



    Last edited by Forcefed; 02-05-2012 at 01:27 PM.
    Click here to enlarge


  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The world...
    Posts
    1,331
    Rep Points
    1,202.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    ^^^ U may want to check the weights of both of those cars... I did. The first one is the evoperformance 5.0 which they claimed has had serious weight reduction and the second has around 600 lbs taken off. At that point; those are both drag prepped 'stangs... far from factory specs, which is the point I was making earlier.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Points
    1,330.4
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    ^^^ U may want to check the weights of both of those cars... I did. The first one is the evoperformance 5.0 which they claimed has had serious weight reduction and the second has around 600 lbs taken off. At that point; those are both drag prepped 'stangs... far from factory specs, which is the point I was making earlier.
    "Serious weight reduction." That doesn't tell me anything, that is an opinion. Provide links.
    Click here to enlarge


  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The world...
    Posts
    1,331
    Rep Points
    1,202.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forcefed Click here to enlarge
    "Serious weight reduction." That doesn't tell me anything, that is an opinion. Provide links.
    That's the problem... it's difficult to even find out full info on this car because the information concerning it is a little bit sketch. The forums are claiming a weight of below 3000 LBS making it a fully prepped drag car. When they did go 10's with a higher weight it was using nitrous (it seems that the definition of NA may be slightly skewed)... All we have to go off is their claim of serious weight reduction.... here is more info on it;

    http://www.mustang50magazine.com/fea...e/viewall.html

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Points
    1,330.4
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    Well then its all speculation at this point. I guess the driver only really knows. Either way, I think we can all agree these cars are FAST.
    Click here to enlarge


  15. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    Traction indeed is key as are the right tires no doubt. The comment about the Zr1 is simply false because that particular car and a Z06 come with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires which are made to go fast on a track that has laps and turns.
    His comment that a ZR1 is a mid-11's car stock is true, not false.

    IIRC, it's been tested by magazines to be around 11.4, 11.5 @ 125-128ish. As Sledgehammer correctly points out, any high HP, manual, rear-wheel drive car on stock street tires will be tricky to ET well.

    The new GT500 isn't underperforming at an 11.5 ET bone stock. Throw an appropriately-sized wheel/DR on the back, and I'd expect you'll see 10's from them with an expert driver in good air.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Rep Points
    339.4
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    No one who's shopping for a 'vette ZR1 is going to cross-shop the GT500, and vice-versa. Very different cars, at very different price points. However, it is definitely out to compete with the also-impressive Camaro ZL1.
    I'm not impressed with the Camaro ZL1. The best trap so far in the car mags was a 117+. The much heavier less hp Ctsv traps like that or better.
    C63 Tuned Only 60-130 in 8.71

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,858
    Rep Points
    31,808.3
    Mentioned
    2089 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG Click here to enlarge
    I'm not impressed with the Camaro ZL1. The best trap so far in the car mags was a 117+. The much heavier less hp Ctsv traps like that or better.
    I thought I saw a 119 somewhere.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Rep Points
    339.4
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I thought I saw a 119 somewhere.
    Where? Ctsv trapped 118.
    C63 Tuned Only 60-130 in 8.71

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,858
    Rep Points
    31,808.3
    Mentioned
    2089 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG Click here to enlarge
    Where? Ctsv trapped 118.
    I think maybe Car and Driver but I might be mistaken. I was glancing through an issue.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG Click here to enlarge
    I'm not impressed with the Camaro ZL1. The best trap so far in the car mags was a 117+. The much heavier less hp Ctsv traps like that or better.
    Who said you were, or should be? What does or does not impress you isn't relevant for these purposes. My point was that the GT500 isn't a ZR1 competitor, and that instead it's a natural ZL1 competitor.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,858
    Rep Points
    31,808.3
    Mentioned
    2089 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Who said you were, or should be? What does or does not impress you isn't relevant for these purposes. My point was that the GT500 isn't a ZR1 competitor, and that instead it's a natural ZL1 competitor.
    This is correct but people should understand that the fact the GT500 can be compared on performance alone to a ZR-1 speaks volumes as to how far Ford upped the Mustang's game.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    This is correct but people should understand that the fact the GT500 can be compared on performance alone to a ZR-1 speaks volumes as to how far Ford upped the Mustang's game.
    I'll wait for some official side by side comparo's to be done. But the GT500 stepped up the game, you don't need to be into the car to see the numbers say volumes.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    New 5.8L Supercharged crate motor + Shelby Cobra replica anyone?

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Rep Points
    339.4
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I thought I saw a 119 somewhere.
    Sorry my bad I got my new issue of mag today. ZL1 ran 12.3@119. But if my car had 580hp it would trap alot higher then 119. But then again ZL1 is 41xx lbs.
    C63 Tuned Only 60-130 in 8.71

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,858
    Rep Points
    31,808.3
    Mentioned
    2089 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG Click here to enlarge
    Sorry my bad I got my new issue of mag today. ZL1 ran 12.3@119.
    My memory is working fine Click here to enlarge

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •