Didn't Evan Smith run a 12.30 in one that was stock with a 2.2 60' ?

The reason I point this out isn't because it is impressive for a 500 horsepower car, but because you guys are comparing the worst GT500 magazine times to the best LS1 times and acting like that's a race.

 

Sexy as hell? The average person doesn't know the "sexy as hell" GT500 is anything more than a $17,000 6 cylinder Mustang.

 

are you sure it was stock? the 3 around here that have been to the track at atco nj have run from 12.7-13.1 stock, evolution performance modded one to hit 11.8 and then 10.9

 

Yes the car was stock. He ran a 12.25 @ 117.18. The 60 foot was 2.11. This is with stock tires, stock tune, stock weight, and 3.31 gears.

 

i doubt that it was completley stock, those pigs are heavy!

 

It was dead stock with other magazines running the same car the same day and at a crappy Milan track. The modded one I listed was run against an '03 Cobra with similar mods, and the more mods added the further the distance between the two.

 

What more needs to be said? Someone lets you know that the car in the hands of the capable is in fact not a high 12 second car and you call BS because it doesn't jive with what you want to believe?

I guess I am lying to talk up the car I don't own.

 

And Kris is a GM guy all the way. So he wouldnt be giving the Ford props if it didnt deserve it.

 

Whatever the best time you've seen run in any car, put Evan Smith in it and he'll beat it by half a second. Most guys are running low 13's (not so good drivers or conditions) to high 12's (seems the average). "Capable" drivers are pushing them mid 12's in good conditions. That is what the car is capable of.
Any numbers run by a guy like Smith, you might as well throw out. They mean nothing. The car is capable of what you can push it to. Its because of stuff like this you see idiots thinking they can beat faster cars and shooting their mouths off because in perfect conditions on a perfect track, with a perfect driver, their car could run a number. Meanwhile they're a second slower and just making an *** of themselves and giving a bad name to anyone who drives that specific model. That's how **** like this gets started.

 

Ok, so if I'm reading this right, the car is a mid-high 12-second car, with a decent driver??

"Best case" ~12.25, "worst case" ~13.1 .

SO, it doesn't take a "best case" 12.xxx second LS1 to beat a not-so-good GT500 ..... just a good low-13 second LS1?

Oh, but what's an "average" Z06 run again??? That's right ... low 12's for the C5's, mid 11's for the C6's!!!

Sorry, I'm having trouble climbing onto the GT500 bandwagon . I'd try to be less derogatory on a Mustang board though .

 

You do realize that the GT500 times Evan ran are still a over a 1/2 second quicker and 10 mph faster than the best times he ran with a LS1 F-Body right? You have also realized that not all LS1s are going to run 12s right? The same magazine testers that ran low 13s with a GT500 were running high 13s with their LS1 testers.

Once again, comparing best to best, average to average, or worst to worst it isn't a driver's race between a LS1 and GT500. I am not talking the GT500 up since I am disappointed that a 500 horsepower car can't find its way out of the 12s without tires and a great driver... But you guys that think this is going to be a cake walk when you line up are in for a rude awakening.

 

A beat to hell LT1 or LS1.

 

guys! its a mustang!


/thread






(... pops got a 06 roush...)

 

this is turning into a magazine race... mags like motor trend flog the living shyt out of the car to get the times they do (clutch dumps, no lift shifts, bounce off the rev. limiter to shift, etc.)...

 

I know, all I was saying is that you can't compare magazine times or even times somebody else at the track has run. A car is only as fast as the dumbass behind the wheel, no matter what it is!