2015 5.0 and Ecoboost in this year's Car & Driver Lightning Lap

[GrabberBlue5.0]

Ok ... your opinion is more valid than mine.:frusty: I give up. :shrug:Arguing what's more fun or takes more skill is retarded. If it was easy everyone would do it. I doubt you possess a NHRA license or have ever been paid to road race. But your interweb expertise is limitless. I don't really understand how you can throw your opinion out there as fact but hey it's the interwebs so have at it. I guess I should have checked in with you before I started drag racing in the 80s. You could of clued me in on the fun factor. We're you even born in the early 80s? Anyway, I'm done with this stupid debate.:tsk:

You literally did the exact same thing to Memphis trying to make your opinion be more valid than his....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sponsored

 

[04SloSnake]

Lol bud I'm just messing. I figured this would somehow get you riled up. It's the same reason why people get riled up over which car is better and which one isn't. It's subjective.

And why this thread has more pages on it than probably any other thread for the short amount of time it's been around.

And early 90s. My brothers however are all in their 40s. Grew up around drag racing, stock car racing, etc.

Nobody needs a professional license to drag race. Just like nobody needs a license to do auto cross or road course tracks. Doesn't mean they aren't any more or less inclined to be experts in their field.

They just need a license.

Something to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that's just not true. Have you ever looked at the NHRA requirements to go 9.99 or faster?

 

[Starman]

Wow, as a new Mustang GT owner I'm shocked at how people can be disappointing at the numbers it posted. People can get into GT's in the ~$30K ranges. Take a look at the cars around its numbers... $70K new Lexus RCF.... BMW "M" and top the line Merc's models running 70k+ large. That's just stock, the GT has *SO* much potential for power for so very little $$$. I am utterly amazed at how well the GT ranks. Well done Ford... well done.

Seriously, see where it sits on that chart, 75a, there's only a few cars on that entire list that is a better "bang for the buck"...

Here, I've created the "bang for the buck" line that should statistically hold:

 

[Brent302]

Wow, as a new Mustang GT owner I'm shocked at how people can be disappointing at the numbers it posted. People can get into GT's in the ~$30K ranges. Take a look at the cars around its numbers... $70K new Lexus RCF.... BMW "M" and top the line Merc's models running 70k+ large. That's just stock, the GT has *SO* much potential for power for so very little $$$. I am utterly amazed at how well the GT ranks. Well done Ford... well done.

Seriously, see where it sits on that chart, 75a, there's only a few cars on that entire list that is a better "bang for the buck"...

Here, I've created the "bang for the buck" line that should statistically hold:

Also I really doubt that the Eco or GT were PP. The Eco numbers being that much lower then the V6 kinda shows that. Honestly though Starman is right look at the company. People focus so much on OTHER people's track times...

 

[Bossing]

Good extrapolation there, [MENTION=18215]Starman[/MENTION]. Maybe more can appreciate the bang for the buck factor. I wouldn't be disappointed in the 5.0 at all. Heck no!

 

[Mr Monte]

What did you think of the Challenger? That's the only one I haven't test drove yet (well besides the 2016 Camaro). I feel like it has the best looks, but I'd be disappointed in the quality, parts, aftermarket, stopping, and cornering.

The Brembos all around on the Challenger SRT8 were awesome. Even after a full day running at Daytona Speedway the brakes were smoking, smelled really bad but still worked wonderfully. The Challenger SRT8 handles WAY better than what people think. Interior quality is a step above the GT or SS. Panel fit was perfect. The bad: Cheap paint, electrical issues and power steering rack got replaced 3 times in 18 months.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

I've said it before, mere mental masturbation.

That, and who cares really? Stock sucks.

 

[thePill]

I don't understand why Ford would send a loaded GTPP to a comparison then a Base GT to Lightning Lap....


Looks like Ford themselves just don't really care about magazine articles... not while they have 8 million Facebook followers, who needs magazines?

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Lol bud I'm just messing. I figured this would somehow get you riled up. It's the same reason why people get riled up over which car is better and which one isn't. It's subjective.

And why this thread has more pages on it than probably any other thread for the short amount of time it's been around.

And early 90s. My brothers however are all in their 40s. Grew up around drag racing, stock car racing, etc.

Nobody needs a professional license to drag race. Just like nobody needs a license to do auto cross or road course tracks. Doesn't mean they aren't any more or less inclined to be experts in their field.

They just need a license.

Something to think about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any car that goes 9.99 or faster and traps above 135MPH is required to have an NHRA license to compete in events. Look it up. I have one. Are you now claiming to be an expert on racing? I kind of take that away from your quote above. If so what race team are you currently working for? Dodging orange cones in a parking lot hardly makes you an expert on road racing.

Also I really doubt that the Eco or GT were PP. The Eco numbers being that much lower then the V6 kinda shows that. Honestly though Starman is right look at the company. People focus so much on OTHER people's track times...

These numbers are all about bragging rights for all the bench racers on these sights. The vast majority of people will never take their car to a drag strip but that's the first thing every car guy turns to in a magazine. A cars 1/4 mile time! And far fewer people will see a road course simply due to the expense. I really struggle with the EBs time when compared to a s197 V6.

 

[Brent302]

Any car that goes 9.99 or faster and traps above 135MPH is required to have an NHRA license to compete in events. Look it up. I have one.

These numbers are all about bragging rights for all the bench racers on these sights. The vast majority of people will never take their car to a drag strip but that's the first thing every car guy turns to in a magazine. A cars 1/4 mile time. And far fewer people will see a road course simply due to the expense. I really struggle with the EBs time when compared to a s197 V6.

I really really think neither was a PP. Especially if that 2011 had the performance pack those things were beast.

"Well, thanks to a newly standard rear limited-slip diff and communicative electric power steering as well as an optional $1995 Performance Package that nets GT suspension and brakes, 19-inch wheels with summer rubber, and a strut-tower brace, our test car recorded maximum lateral acceleration of 0.96 g and 60-to-0 braking in 104 feet. Not even a feathery Mazda MX-5 Miata (0.91, 120) can match those numbers. And for all that, neither can our long-term BMW M3 (0.94, 105)."

"0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.7 at 102.0 mph."

Ford use to care about the 3.7 and it's a damn shame they are kicking it to the side

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I really really think neither was a PP. Especially if that 2011 had the performance pack those things were beast.

"Well, thanks to a newly standard rear limited-slip diff and communicative electric power steering as well as an optional $1995 Performance Package that nets GT suspension and brakes, 19-inch wheels with summer rubber, and a strut-tower brace, our test car recorded maximum lateral acceleration of 0.96 g and 60-to-0 braking in 104 feet. Not even a feathery Mazda MX-5 Miata (0.91, 120) can match those numbers. And for all that, neither can our long-term BMW M3 (0.94, 105)."

"0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.7 at 102.0 mph."

Ford use to care about the 3.7 and it's a damn shame they are kicking it to the side

I couldn't agree more. Why ford wouldn't send a PP to something like this is mind boggling. I cant wait to get my subscription to get the details.

 

[Memphis]

Any car that goes 9.99 or faster and traps above 135MPH is required to have an NHRA license to compete in events. Look it up. I have one. Are you now claiming to be an expert on racing? I kind of take that away from your quote above. If so what race team are you currently working for? Dodging orange cones in a parking lot hardly makes you an expert on road racing.

These numbers are all about bragging rights for all the bench racers on these sights. The vast majority of people will never take their car to a drag strip but that's the first thing every car guy turns to in a magazine. A cars 1/4 mile time! And far fewer people will see a road course simply due to the expense. I really struggle with the EBs time when compared to a s197 V6.

I am well aware. But to do things such as test and tune you are not. At least not here.

And again, I was just messing with you. I do not claim to be an expert in anything and will gladly take any advice you may have on how to drag race that I may or may not already know. Always willing to learn.

My point AGAIN was that everything in this thread is subjective. It's personal preference.

Let me give you another example. You don't have to be lebron james to dribble a basketball or shoot a j.

However in both of these instances you do have to have certain things. Athleticism (basketball) or money (racing) to make it to the top.

I've never been a proponent that thinks that people who race are just talented (there are a few, but they are the exception)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

I really really think neither was a PP. Especially if that 2011 had the performance pack those things were beast.

"Well, thanks to a newly standard rear limited-slip diff and communicative electric power steering as well as an optional $1995 Performance Package that nets GT suspension and brakes, 19-inch wheels with summer rubber, and a strut-tower brace, our test car recorded maximum lateral acceleration of 0.96 g and 60-to-0 braking in 104 feet. Not even a feathery Mazda MX-5 Miata (0.91, 120) can match those numbers. And for all that, neither can our long-term BMW M3 (0.94, 105)."

"0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.7 at 102.0 mph."

Ford use to care about the 3.7 and it's a damn shame they are kicking it to the side

Well, not bad for the Base car... I hope it wasn't a Loaded Premium. That would just be...


On the other hand, I do like seeing the worst case scenario reported. The loaded weights and performance. If Ford is in fact selling more loaded Premiums, don't you think that is what they should send?

I wasn't really interested in the Base GT's performance BUT, looking at the results now, I'm actually impressed. It's just as fast as the previous GT at VIR, maybe a little cheaper, looks a lot better and still has a $2000 Performance Pack to option.


Not bad for a volume car... the base is still probably beyond my current skill level.

I'd rather see a base GT350 run...

 

[Memphis]

Well that's just not true. Have you ever looked at the NHRA requirements to go 9.99 or faster?

Yes. But if your track doesn't require Nhra rules for test and tune events then......

All you need is a roll cage and approved helmet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

Yes. But if your track doesn't require Nhra rules for test and tune events then......

All you need is a roll cage and approved helmet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They waved the cage requirement in 2008 and newer vehicles. I think 9.99 is still required to run a cage. You can't remove your airbags though :( but it makes sense. No cage because of OEM safety equipment...

Sponsored