Ran a New 5.0 tonight
08-06-2011, 02:04 AM
#302
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get off your high horse and think about what you're saying before you say it. First off my "location" has nothing to do with my intelligence. I'm not from Missisippi, I just live here, and I know it's supposedly full of dumb people, I get the stupid stereotype. FYI, I'm 22, not 16, but nice guess.
Next, the supercharged '03 and '04 are faster than the LS1, I know that. But that's why I said the LS1 is faster than any NATURALLY ASPIRATED Mustang! That means no blower, no supercharger, none of that. Comprehend?
Also, I never said the same year Camaro was faster than the same year Mustang, stop twisting my words. I said the LS1 in particular is faster than any 2010 Mustang and prior that is NATURALLY ASPIRATED! (NO BLOWER, NO SUPERCHARGER, NO TURBOCHARGER) I hate repeating myself.
And yes, I know the F-bodies were not built with quality in mind. I own one. I also have a friend who has a 1996 Cobra, which I like and respect very much. Trust me, Mustangs don't have much more in the way of "quality" when compared to a Camaro.
And lastly, he is going to misspell "Camaro" to "Camero" on purpose? That's supposed to be an insult? misspelling a car name? Maybe if he called it "slowmaro" or something, but spelling it "Camero" deliberately is just stupid.
Next, the supercharged '03 and '04 are faster than the LS1, I know that. But that's why I said the LS1 is faster than any NATURALLY ASPIRATED Mustang! That means no blower, no supercharger, none of that. Comprehend?
Also, I never said the same year Camaro was faster than the same year Mustang, stop twisting my words. I said the LS1 in particular is faster than any 2010 Mustang and prior that is NATURALLY ASPIRATED! (NO BLOWER, NO SUPERCHARGER, NO TURBOCHARGER) I hate repeating myself.
And yes, I know the F-bodies were not built with quality in mind. I own one. I also have a friend who has a 1996 Cobra, which I like and respect very much. Trust me, Mustangs don't have much more in the way of "quality" when compared to a Camaro.
And lastly, he is going to misspell "Camaro" to "Camero" on purpose? That's supposed to be an insult? misspelling a car name? Maybe if he called it "slowmaro" or something, but spelling it "Camero" deliberately is just stupid.
If you really knew what you're trying to talk about, you'd shut up. There were ABSOLUTELY Mustangs from 1993-2002 which outperformed the Camaro. Though you don't know about it, the 2000 Cobra R I mentioned would SPANK any production 4th gen GM offered. Not just beat it, but ANNIHILATE it! For your information, it was naturally aspirated.
What, the GT-R costs more than the ZR1?
I personally think the ZR1 is more of a performer, but harder to drive. Price, however, surely favors the GT-R.
08-06-2011, 02:05 AM
#303
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do some of you realize that Saleens could be ordered from your Ford dealer and came with the factory warranty as did some Steeda Gts. I seem to remember a blown S351 Saleen back in 95 that ran low 12s in stock form and trapped 117MPH. With just slicks and skinnies it really got ugly fast. If you dislike Mustangs fine but get your facts straight. Just because a car is faster than another doesn't make it a POS.
08-06-2011, 04:20 AM
#305
This one has only 118 miles on it and is at 52k already.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ford-...fCarsQ5fTrucks
08-06-2011, 07:35 AM
#306
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300 Cobra R's made? It was a rare car, not available to sale for the general public. I rest my case about the LS1 beating any N/A Mustang, point proven.
Now we have OhioBorn looking up drag times and 0-60 times from all these unreliable sources over the internet, trying to show that the ZR1 is slow. Just give it up, you're making yourself look bad.
Now we have OhioBorn looking up drag times and 0-60 times from all these unreliable sources over the internet, trying to show that the ZR1 is slow. Just give it up, you're making yourself look bad.
Last edited by WhiteKnight '01; 08-06-2011 at 07:57 AM.
08-06-2011, 07:55 AM
#307
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Wow... You've got some serious growing up to do. Here's a start. Your car is NOT that quick... Somehow, you still sit there and brag about what others can't do and you COULD, but don't. How about getting your car into the 10's? Others have been there for over a decade now... Where you AT??? 
All this crapola from you while the guys with REALLY quick F-bodies generally sit back quietly, knowing what they can do/have done... but you never did. Many W/O an engine swap have done far better than you ever have.
Oh, I know, you wouldn't wanna make it any quicker because then it may not be a DD...
I kinda wonder why you talk more trash than Ali in his prime, but unlike Ali, you aren't capable of really backing it up on game day. I mean, even 10's aren't gonna net you any crowns in the racing world of 2011.
I was about to guess that you're 16... Then I realized where you live... I digress. He evidently made a point to incorrectly spell Camaro as well as crack on its many shortcomings, oh maestro of the mindset...
That said, 1993-2002 Camaro models were superior to every Mustang Ford built... Oh... Well, that just settles it, since you came along and cleared it all up...
Quicker than some, superior to none... Have you ANY idea the quality difference in various automobiles? The F-body was simply never built with quality being the main attraction. If you think it was, you've probably not been inside many other vehicles.
The 4th gen was quicker than every Mustang Ford built... Except those it wasn't quicker than...
Which '95 Camaro was superior(quicker) to the 1995 Cobra R? Which 4th gen was superior(quicker) to the 2000 Cobra R? Which 4th gen was quicker than the 2003/4 Cobra? Those are 3 models which Ford built... I think they're all part of "every Mustang" so far... 
Your "guarnateed" statement has no promise worthy of notice because it's 100% incorrect and inaccurate on its face.
All this crapola from you while the guys with REALLY quick F-bodies generally sit back quietly, knowing what they can do/have done... but you never did. Many W/O an engine swap have done far better than you ever have.Oh, I know, you wouldn't wanna make it any quicker because then it may not be a DD...
I kinda wonder why you talk more trash than Ali in his prime, but unlike Ali, you aren't capable of really backing it up on game day. I mean, even 10's aren't gonna net you any crowns in the racing world of 2011.I was about to guess that you're 16... Then I realized where you live... I digress. He evidently made a point to incorrectly spell Camaro as well as crack on its many shortcomings, oh maestro of the mindset...
That said, 1993-2002 Camaro models were superior to every Mustang Ford built... Oh... Well, that just settles it, since you came along and cleared it all up...
Quicker than some, superior to none... Have you ANY idea the quality difference in various automobiles? The F-body was simply never built with quality being the main attraction. If you think it was, you've probably not been inside many other vehicles.
The 4th gen was quicker than every Mustang Ford built... Except those it wasn't quicker than...
Which '95 Camaro was superior(quicker) to the 1995 Cobra R? Which 4th gen was superior(quicker) to the 2000 Cobra R? Which 4th gen was quicker than the 2003/4 Cobra? Those are 3 models which Ford built... I think they're all part of "every Mustang" so far... Your "guarnateed" statement has no promise worthy of notice because it's 100% incorrect and inaccurate on its face.
08-06-2011, 07:59 AM
#308
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
As above you sound like a ricer. Well they put a blower on it, that just isn't fair. That be liek ford guys saying well you have 1.5L's more or your engine is 56cu. in. more. So all GM cars with engines same size as us. GM could have done the same thing. And look after so many years they are now doing it. CTS-V/ZL1.
08-06-2011, 08:05 AM
#309
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Ofcourse we are jealous of your superior Camero! I just can't get over the impetuous detail GM gave the cars. The quality of the interior, the crisp tightness of the door handles, the windows that roll completely down in half a second...Ford, why aren't you taking notes!? 
08-06-2011, 12:42 PM
#314
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-06-2011, 01:00 PM
#316
Oh a little comparison of the yrs...Looks like the Mustang have been favored more years then the Camaro. Specially since no camaro to ompare from 02-09
Year/model/horsepower 0-60 mph, sec e.t./mph
'64 Mustang Hi-Po, 271 7.5 15.7/89.0
'65 Shelby GT350, 306 7.0 15.7/91.0
'67 Camaro SS-350, 295 8.0 15.4/90.0
'68 Shelby GT500, 360 6.5 14.8/98.0
'69 Camaro RS 350, 300 8.3 15.9/88.0
'69 Mustang Mach 351, 290 7.5 15.6/88.0
'71 Camaro Z/28, 330 7.6 15.4/90.0
'71 Mustang Mach 1 429, 370 6.5 14.6/96.8
'75 Mustang Cobra II, 140 9.6 17.5/78.0
'77 Camaro Z-28, 170 8.1 15.4/90.1
'82 Camaro Z-28, 165 9.4 17.1/80.7
'82 Mustang GT 5.0, 157 8.6 16.7/81.0
'87 Camaro IROC Z, 230 6.7 15.2/91.2
'87 Mustang GT 5.0, 225 6.5 15.1/94.1
'93 Camaro Z28, 275 6.2 14.7/96.9
'95 SVT Mustang Cobra R, 280 5.2 13.8/102.0
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1UGz4sdkU
Year/model/horsepower 0-60 mph, sec e.t./mph
'64 Mustang Hi-Po, 271 7.5 15.7/89.0
'65 Shelby GT350, 306 7.0 15.7/91.0
'67 Camaro SS-350, 295 8.0 15.4/90.0
'68 Shelby GT500, 360 6.5 14.8/98.0
'69 Camaro RS 350, 300 8.3 15.9/88.0
'69 Mustang Mach 351, 290 7.5 15.6/88.0
'71 Camaro Z/28, 330 7.6 15.4/90.0
'71 Mustang Mach 1 429, 370 6.5 14.6/96.8
'75 Mustang Cobra II, 140 9.6 17.5/78.0
'77 Camaro Z-28, 170 8.1 15.4/90.1
'82 Camaro Z-28, 165 9.4 17.1/80.7
'82 Mustang GT 5.0, 157 8.6 16.7/81.0
'87 Camaro IROC Z, 230 6.7 15.2/91.2
'87 Mustang GT 5.0, 225 6.5 15.1/94.1
'93 Camaro Z28, 275 6.2 14.7/96.9
'95 SVT Mustang Cobra R, 280 5.2 13.8/102.0
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1UGz4sdkU
08-06-2011, 01:04 PM
#317
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Piqua,OH
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-06-2011, 01:15 PM
#318
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever even owned an LS1? I DO happen to own one, and it's an automatic. And I can assure you I get a LOT better than 18-22 highway. I average 26MPG on the highway, and 16 around the city.
13 and 22? You're just pulling numbers out of your ***.
08-06-2011, 01:22 PM
#319
13 city and 22 highway? That's WAY off from what the paper says, you think they're that inaccurate?
Have you ever even owned an LS1? I DO happen to own one, and it's an automatic. And I can assure you I get a LOT better than 18-22 highway. I average 26MPG on the highway, and 16 around the city.
13 and 22? You're just pulling numbers out of your ***.
Have you ever even owned an LS1? I DO happen to own one, and it's an automatic. And I can assure you I get a LOT better than 18-22 highway. I average 26MPG on the highway, and 16 around the city.
13 and 22? You're just pulling numbers out of your ***.
08-06-2011, 01:25 PM
#320
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wilmywood NC
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts