7998

iTrader: (1)

The point is manufacturers play around numbers all the time, and fan boys like you always spaz out and try to insinuate there some conspiracy.
It has been going on for a long time some over rate some under rate.
I am guessing Edmunds wanted to see if they sent a ringer.
Like I said in post #6 I don't think they did. The 5.0 is a stout car thats why I went to look at them the other day.

Now F-OFF

It'llrun

Edmunds was pissed? Why would they care? If you meant Ford is pissed... I'm still asking why? They've apparently welcomed GM back by producing a completely better line of Mustangs. How's that hitting below the belt? Maybe you happen to believe that 1st car was actually a ringer that Ford tuned for better results. Looking at the best ET's of the Mustang GT, it's looking like Ford could've picked a better tune, if they tuned it. Haven't we heard a stock GT has run 12.3's already? I don't think the test car did or would do that. Too many others have already posted numbers at least as good as their tester, on the track, regardless what the dyno showed. Dyno's are for testing anyway, not so much racing.

It'llrun

Yeah... Except COMPLETELY WRONG! I said precisely the OPPOSITE of what you just claimed. Pay attention! My point was clear: The car they had was no ringer because others have performed almost identically to it. I also said I almost wonder who paid the editor to add the article. I never even suggested GM or Ford paid for it, hence, no conspiracy. I was questioning Edmunds having paid the guy for a non-story... Sheesh.

My point to you was also clear. There's positively NO correlation between the 99 Cobra and this new Mustang regarding performance, be it better or worse. If you really think there is one, vs your "I hate Fords" opinion, share it.

This is what some of us said before you enlightened us...
Which is right along with the majority of us, that they had little reason to actually make a story of it in any questioning fashion.

That has nothing to do with any of this. Congratulations on looking at a Mustang... I guess.

What an attitude. First, you got what I said entirely backward, then to tell me to F-off... You're not looking very intelligent so far.

PS Post 6 isn't yours, post 7 is. Again, pay attention.

01ssreda4

iTrader: (96)

Ford tuned this press car is the bottom line. Not full tuned but tweaked it just a tad. No big deal. They are fighting for a share of the market, you need tactics, and strategy. It's in the spirit of competition thats why I don't have a problem with it. Camaro sales are dominating, Ford releases their baby, the new engine, **** yeah they want it to impress the pants off the people writing the article. Ford has the better performing car here gentlemen and they want everyone to know it. That being said, I still would take the slower Camaro.....or my faster 4th gen

Johnnystock

iTrader: (6)

I recently saw a thread where it explains that the new 5.0l on higher octane gas will pump out an extra 10 horse..that should explain this. They said it was in the owners manual..Unless it was a sarcastic post LOL

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

One on 91 vs one on 93, both cars were driven differently, and a lot of other things the article doesn't talk about could easily add up to the 4% difference(like someone else posted, different oil/gears/temps/days/etc). 15hp would be overlooked on a 150hp car with 1500+ miles on it, not sure why they are making a fuss about it on a 400+hp car. I doubt any production car is going to hold much better than a 4% tolerance on horsepower; I have never seen a car that every one dyno'd made the exact same horsepower, so why should it be expected?

01ssreda4

iTrader: (96)

The graphs dont separate until halfway up.....I dont think it gets anymore obvious then that.

chaman

iTrader: (5)

I dont see that difference as been anything significant. Whats the point this article was trying to make? They proved nothing.