"MAC"

iTrader: (1)

Bc they are wrong?

sw07gt

iTrader: (10)

At the track here one ran 11.80 tire only.

"MAC"

iTrader: (1)

What year?

JC316

iTrader: (1)

How are they wrong? If you look at the mustang times, they're dead on. Low 14's@100 for a PI GT, mid 13's@104 for 3V's. You really trying to tell me that a CTS-V runs faster than a 13.2@110?


It actually comes back to my point of LS guys lying out their asses on mods. The Fbody times would send shock waves of butthurt through this forum. The fastest being an 02 SS running 13.5@108 with most trapping 105MPH. If you go back to the early days of this forum, same ****, it was common for them to be a mid 13 second car.

Then right around 2010, suddenly all of these 12 second@108-110 "bone stock" "factory freak" examples start showing up.

Jay z28

iTrader: (5)

It's well known that you need 120k miles on your LS1 and then you can run high 12's bone stock. Lmao

S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

Not even close to true...those "freak" times were posted all over this place. The MM&FF test and Nineballs results come to mind off the top of my head.

Fast02Z06

iTrader: (1)

I had an 04 V1 3 years ago stock and although a fun car for what it was it was not fast at all. I didn't do any mods to it at all so I cannot speak for modded V1's but I can certainly see a 392 taking down a V1 with ease.

JC316

iTrader: (1)

Even Super Chevy's was calling bullshit on those, questioning if GM was sending out ringers to the press fleet. Even still, I am not saying that they couldn't do it, but it certainly wasn't normal, yet people act like every single one did it.

odthetruth

iTrader: (4)

Looks like a lot of magazine racing because a 392 lost. I agree... Carry on. lol

JC316

iTrader: (1)

My point remains. The slowest 392 tested was 110mph trap speed, and the fastest V was 110mph. So yeah, it might be possible that this video had a quicker V vs a slower 392, but it's far more likely that the V has extra mods.

odthetruth

iTrader: (4)

No extra mods. Both had passengers. 392 took the L.

JC316

iTrader: (1)

Caddy barely pulling a 6.1L charger..... In the 1/4 mile, that charger won, the V only pulled up top. Oh and big shock, the charger is a mid 13 second car....

odthetruth

iTrader: (4)

Anything can happen on the street. Not hurting me to see that. Only amazed that the 6.1 and 6.4 seem to perform the same way. LOL Extra power AND extra weight. Dodge motto.

S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

Every single one? Nope. Normal? Nope. I chased it myself with a 108/109 mph stock trapping car. Could never get a good enough 60ft to pull it off... it took a great driver, at a great track in amazing air to pull it off. I belive around a dozen people claimed 12s back then (considering how many were sold its a very tiny number of people). A stock 12 is like a low 12 392 or a low 12 5.0 car... can't claim it's impossible (it's happened) but certainly not the normal result.

JC316

iTrader: (1)

I agree with this. I think I got stuck with a couple of those 13.7@105 factory cars.

S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

I thought I did when I first got mine... 13.5 @ 105 all day long... probably have 50 slips with that time on it. Then I read rangers tips (rangerracceleration.com)... slipped clutch from 2200 rpm (slight bog)... ran it to the limited each gear (hit the limiter in 2nd and 3rd on my 13.1 @ 108 pass) and boom low 13s all day long. Literally had this happen during a track visit. I was so bummed about my times I figured I would just try something else and it made a big difference.

S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

My buddies 2006 Charger SRT8 ran 12.8 @ 108 on a 1.9 60ft stock... I was next to him and I've worked on the car so I know it was stock. When conditions are right they are definitely not hitting mid 13s here. He normally ran 13.3 -13.0 range but it did click off some 12s when the DA went low enough.