what was the DA on that january run? i'll google the weather conditions for that day if i can. my bet is the corrected time is slower. dont complain about the competition running negative DA's when everyone is quoting them.

 

another one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=_C9z...eature=related

 

http://www.wunderground.com/history/...tename=Georgia

242 feet elevation at the track.
39 degrees
16* dewpoint
<62 percent realtive humiditiy
30.43 pressure

DA is........

 

-945 DA
grains of water 22
102.8 percentDI

 

corrects to 12.96. DA matters. keep posting negative DA runs.

 

Well it is a 2011, they haven't even started selling them around here yet so it may be a while before they start getting into the hands of guys who actually know how to drive them. So I do agree with O2 wife, I would like to see what happens when they get into the hands of actual owners. From what I've read, I believe the car itself is penty capable of pulling off mid to high 12's on street tires and I don't think it would take a pro to do it either. Now you guys can downplay it all you like thats your choice. Hoping that you never run into the right driver in one doesn't sound like much of a plan to me. If it turns out you guys are right then none of us have anything to worry about. However, if you guys are wrong and this GT with a little practice is a mid 12 second car all day, I suspect the streets are going to get real f*cking ugly in a hurry. I would plan accordingly.

 

Yes I am serious, facts. That is what I am looking for thats what I go by. Not some private video that someone posted and we have no idea what's been done to the car. Do you go to the track? You know how many guys say there car is stock and then go run an 11. If I show you a video of a pinto running a 10 and tell you its stock, you gonna believe that too? Getting the power to the ground is not the camaros big problem, its weight is.

If a 12.6@112 is equal too or slower time than what a 2010 SS runs, I wanna know what magazine your talking about? I wanna read it too.

 

Well isn't that a contradiction. I take it you were at every track where the 5.0 ran? The same magazine posted that a bone stock Mach 1 ran 12.9 with a gear and CAI. How many times have you seen that in person? If the 5.0 was so easy to get into the mid 12's as you say then why didn't it run a low 12 at Atco. Come on man, you have been drinking a little too much of the blue kool-aid. This thread has ceased being an informative comparison and is now a flying **** fest.

 

I am sure it was from the start

 

I was told there was no way it was doing mid 12s on stock tires. I was told it would need slicks, and even then it might not hit it.

 

Yea man I do see them everywhere...

 

Evolution's car with slicks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJsm...layer_embedded

 

Seems as though SHO's can take on the 5.0's with a little tuning too lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LoB...layer_embedded

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
Just watch

 

Is that rev limiter or two-step i hear at launch?

 

Sounds like a two-step to me.

 

Me too.

There's already a whole different thread about this...
https://ls1tech.com/forums/street-ra...sho-video.html

Same as above, already in another thread... or is at the beginning of this one... Maybe it's part of this... https://ls1tech.com/forums/automotiv...ustang-gt.html

 

Ah no, as I said before they don't sell them here yet.

I'll ask you the same thing, what magazine are you talking about? Not that it really matters I have seen a Mach1 pull that off in person, but then again I've seen many LS1's pull that off too. Whats your point?

More than once, in person not some youtube video.

You should ask the driver at Atco, how would I know? Ford is advertising this GT as a 12 second car, not me. There is more than one magazine that back that up, for example (MM&FF) 5/10. There are countless videos and articles by a variety of different organizations that also back that up. Are they all bias? Some may be, but all of them? Again we will have to wait and see what this car can do on the street, thats why I use the term IF. From what I've read the GT is going to be an easy 12 sec car. The Camaro? If its a manual with the LS3 high 12s are very possible with the right driver. Short of that bone stock you can forget it. If you have proof to prove otherwise post it.
You got that right.

 

sorry guys, i love both cars and the mustang got it beat. Im not sure what the deal is with that mag. It has the tell tell feel of a payed of report to it. M&FF mag took the 2011 mustang out and ran a 12.34 qtr @ 110.77 mph. with a 1.758 60-foot with some M/T's on it. without tires they got 12.61 at 112.61 with a 2.00 60-foor on stock tires. Camaro meet its maker on this one. But none of this matters anyway, the real war for the real players in out in the land of after market. This land does not care what you ran stock....

 

Well then it's a little too early to make such bold statements that the SS will be beat by the GT.


MM&FF is the magazine I am referring too. They post up some low times and always have. There really is no way to argue that. Hell they were the first to post a stock LS1 in the 12's. Now I'm not saying they are lying, Evan Smith is just one hell of a driver and they prep the track very well. It is not going to be the normal ET at your local test and tune.


Really? You have seen a Mach 1 with gears and a CAI rip a 12.9? Well then it's possible but most Mach's I see are modded and run mid-low 13's.



It has been proven at least twice by video in this thread. I have no need to repost the video. There is a video of a walk around of the same yellow SS to prove it's stock. The stock record on the Camaro SS is a 12.5 and that's a fact, so far the GT is a 12.6. It's a damn close race. There was a magazine that tested the GT at a 13.2. ET has been anywhere from 13.2-12.6. One stat that doesn't lie is MPH and it has been spot on with the SS. That leads me to believe the GT will be a fast car but you can't say it will be way ahead of the SS. I don't know why, maybe it was because the SS was so much faster than the 2010 GT, but you didn't see nearly the same amount of track testing done on the SS.


At least we agree on something