Got dayum stop with the bullshit guys

the new mustangs are ******* fast..no if ands or butts about it..

You guys do realize that the magazines only got 101-104 mph trap speeds for the ls1 camaros right???

But we constantly saw good drivers in good weather hit 105-108 mph and even a few 109's and 110's out there.

the ******* mustangs..And excuse my launguage but Im pissed that you guys arent being two sided...these ******* mustangs have ran 109-112 mph in the rags..guess what. A good driver in good weather might hit a few mph more..I know thats hard to belieave

If we as car enthusiast are gonna discredit this time slip then **** it..Why even go to the drag strip..lets just call BS on sacramento and atco and all the other tracks..

Wake up guys...The new mustang is the real Deal. this is what we have been waiting for..And now that they have delivered the competition it's time to man up and mod out..Not cop out

 

I see having common sense doesn't go hand in hand with owning a Viper.

 

^^^ This... the gt will not pick up that much in the last 1/8th I dont car what you guys say. Not bone stock and no way its goin to trap higher than a m6 gt. The ET's I will agree with! The track trap speeds have to be off by 1-2mph like a lot of guys stated in that thread at modularfords.com

Not true... one guy I know went 12.6@116 and another went 12.4@118 so you cant try to say somethin like that.

Agreed! They are proving themselves to be a pretty stout car.

You are such a dumbass. Read that thread where he talks about dynoing it. He never tuned it, but you are the GM nutswinger who is butt hurt that Ford actually made a quick GT now. You are a piece of work.

No offense to any of you other gm owners, but this guy is a disgrace and quite illiterate and biased.

God you are truly a dumbass. You should be forced to own a Honda ONLY

 

Sorry but I don't see that kind of back half coming from a "stock" mustang, although I still find them impressive.

Love the engine, but its not going to have a shitty 60', mediocre 1/8th, and then back half the **** out of the track and trap 115 but only run a high 12.

Again, what is "Stock"? Reminds me of the time a guy wanted to race with his stock LS1 and a "25 shot" that was only to "cool the intake charge" . Who in the world would fall for that?!?

 

Guys, STREET RACING AND KILL STORIES. I know we all want to keep tabs on the new 5.0's, and we especially want to start seeing some street racing stories with them, but these track results threads belong in the Drag Racing Results section, not here. Moved.

 

Yep, 115mph will never ever be seen by a stock 5.0 automatic. It's a bogus time due to a timing glitch or it wasn't stock, period. The car is 400lbs too heavy to trap that high, period. If the timing system was correct, the guy had a 50-shot on the back half.

 

the SRT8 Chargers has seen over 107mph with 700lbs extra of ppure fat and roughly the same power at the wheels that the mustang is seeing. 115mph is a lil high but not impossible.

 

Here I will lay it down for all of you... listen very clearly because this is the truth.

Sac is my home track I have about 500 passes at the track over the last 5 years. I know the track very very well. Last march I believe they made a change to the beams which changed the location of the trap speed beams, moving them closer together only about a couple inches closer, but this changed the traps speeds tremendously, they were about 5-6mph high, recently they made a change to fix this, but they are still about 2-4 mph off.

Yes the trap speed is higher that is a fact, but sac is notoriously fast track because we get really good weather come fall winter times.

and for the one that said sacs prep is crappy, go there on tnt or grudge night, they have a new track compound and people who actually care about prep now and the track hoooooks hard if you have a tire.

case closed

 

I have raced at Sacramento Raceway: back in the late 80's. Guys bitched back then that the mph readings were goofy compared to any other track. Hell, the NHRA make them switch it out in the early 90's, but my friends said it was still erratic: usually high. Guess it hasnt changed?

Check this out: Nearly identical numbers on the X'd out numbers here. Compares real nice to the numbers listed for that 5.0 right? Even the back half gains are similiar! (according to dragtimes, my temps were 9 degrees hotter than the 5.0's 60deg F with a track about the same altitude.)



Only one problem: that car is a 4.11, LT + full exhaust, pullied (3.0 pulley I believe he said?), CAI, tuned, *claimed* 495rwhp Termi Cobra on 555R tires. He had traction issues obviously, and couldnt go full throttle until third gear where he yarded me around the 1000' mark: I'm full bolton, and for this Cobra to do that 1/8th to 1/4 MPH jump he was fricking flying!!! Blew my bolton goats doors off when he finally got traction. You trying to sell that the new 5.0 can pull that hard, you are selling it to the wrong person.

 

so fast tracks like englishtown, and atco and others must not count either then huh. Or fast dynos like the ones in texas must not count.....

 

I have spun really bad before all through 1st and 2nd with really slow shifts (stupid gm hydraulics), this will result in a lower 1/8th mph. Seems like you gain a lot more on the backhalf, which makes sense as the slower you go to the 1/8 the less drag there is. My car usually gained 26mph on the back side but when I had problems getting to the 1/8th I gained almost 28 mph. My car is a 6 speed though and at the time had 411 rwhp. I've gone 85 mph in the 1/8th and 113 mph in the 1/4 haha. This is all with 4000' DA, so at sea level I'd assume I would gain even more. The new mustang is a damn impressive car for being what it is (302 ci?).

 

At Englishtown and Atco the numbers are fast due to good weather conditions and DA, but the numbers make sense all the way down the track. For the results posted here about this Mustang, the numbers all make sense except for the mph in the 1/4.

 

115mph at say 3800 raceweight sounds high for the dyno numbers I've seen with these cars, but I think the new 2011 Mustangs are impressive regardless.

 

I love the fact that you truely believe a stock '11 GT Auto trapped 115. I wonder what else we can get you to believe.

 

Actually I think its more like 600lbs, 109-110mph but you have a point there, to a certain degree.

Those are negative-DA runs. Add to that about 20rwhp when running cool vs. normal operating temps.

I still say 115mph is off.

 

Why all the frustration? :crazy:

No one here is taking any credit away from the '11 Mustang. People are simply weeding out all the bullshit that's been floating around the interweb. A bone-stock '11 GT Auto going 115? I don't think so. I can see those traps with a manual version at a track like atco, but not the auto. Not quite.

Just an FYI, most magazines were trapping 105 & up in stock LS1 6-speed cars when they first came onto the scene. More 105+ traps than below. Road & Track's car wen't 105.4, MM&FF wen't 108 in '99, M/T took their '99 WS6 test car to 107.4, Motor Week 108 in their '99 Firehawk tester, and so on. My point is the actual bone-stock traps us 'real world' guys saw didn't vary too far from what the magazines were running.

 

I think the mustang could gain 30mph on the back half if it came to a stop at the 1/8th…. That slip doesn’t add up.

 

to the guy who posted the gear ratios for the auto 6 speed, 4.17 first gear?!?! thats INSANE. what does it go 20 mph in first? lol

 

There's not a chance that that the car's are picking up the kind of #'s on the back 1/2 that a 9 second car does.

There's so much in this thread I'm killing it.