Good point. Traction seems to be an issue. Low 12s should be a breeze with that power to weight ratio
I have seen 2 09 GT 500s run 12.2 with just a tire on the back Not a slick either just a drag radial. I am sure with a nitto on the back it wouldn't be a problem for a 2010 GT500. alot of them are dynoing 500 to 511 to the wheels bone stock. That should be good for 11s with a drag radial.
I spent quite a bit of time looking at both cars. In the end there were several factors that made me pick the 2010 Mustang. First, Chevy dealers acted like they were doing you a favor by letting you put down $2000 non refundable, on a full price (or more car) that wouldn't be there for 3-4 months. Some dealers didn't even have allocation and would take money to put you on list, and then would order when they did have allocation (once you moved up their internal list). I went to a few dealers and I just didn't feel comfortable in the transaction...all the GM crap didn't help. Was that dealer even going to be there in 3 months? I felt like saying, "hey, isn't your company is hurting?...show some sign you actually want me to buy a car, and didn't I see this thing in a movie like 3 years ago". I had owned a Mustang before and enjoyed it, so I had some bias going in...but if the Camaro was "the car" I was going to get it.
Now not reading numbers in the brochure...just going by feel, the two cars were super comparable. The interior is great, they both drive well and feel powerful. The Camaro maybe edges out on the new wow factor but when I took my 2010 Mustang to the track it got a lot of attention too.
So, I hit the Ford dealer....and dang they actually want to sell a car. And wow, it is a huge amount cheaper (about $5260 for comparable Camaro I was looking at). And can you believe it, they actually have them on the lot.
So in the end, availability, price, company, dealership on a tested a tweaked Mustang helped win my vote. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Camaro, heck I almost bought one but for me Mustang was the right choice and I am loving it.
:Word:
I had exactly the same experience. The Chevy dealers wouldn't even let you drive the car. Why would I buy a car that I can't test drive first? It's a lot of hype, this new Camaro. Some aspects of the car are great, but GM wants you to bow down to them to buy one. I've found that many of the Camaro owners are most influenced by what other people will think of their car. They want others to gawk at it and give thumbs up all the time. So it's sort of an attention thing, they need attention. I just wanted a car I could be happy with that looked good. And Ford actually wants to sell them, what a concept.
I spent quite a bit of time looking at both cars. In the end there were several factors that made me pick the 2010 Mustang. First, Chevy dealers acted like they were doing you a favor by letting you put down $2000 non refundable, on a full price (or more car) that wouldn't be there for 3-4 months. Some dealers didn't even have allocation and would take money to put you on list, and then would order when they did have allocation (once you moved up their internal list). I went to a few dealers and I just didn't feel comfortable in the transaction...all the GM crap didn't help. Was that dealer even going to be there in 3 months? I felt like saying, "hey, isn't your company is hurting?...show some sign you actually want me to buy a car, and didn't I see this thing in a movie like 3 years ago". I had owned a Mustang before and enjoyed it, so I had some bias going in...but if the Camaro was "the car" I was going to get it.
Now not reading numbers in the brochure...just going by feel, the two cars were super comparable. The interior is great, they both drive well and feel powerful. The Camaro maybe edges out on the new wow factor but when I took my 2010 Mustang to the track it got a lot of attention too.
So, I hit the Ford dealer....and dang they actually want to sell a car. And wow, it is a huge amount cheaper (about $5260 for comparable Camaro I was looking at). And can you believe it, they actually have them on the lot.
So in the end, availability, price, company, dealership on a tested a tweaked Mustang helped win my vote. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Camaro, heck I almost bought one but for me Mustang was the right choice and I am loving it.
Top Speed, I have no idea about LS1.com and their issues, but LS1tech.com is the largest F-Body site out there and very well respected. Not sure about the site your referring to though.
If I took your words out of context my apologies. Really im not here to stir the pot, I like to talk cars and Mustang and Camaros have always been good conversation....for me anyway lol. All im saying is be open minded, when I post something its not to smear, its just mainly room for discussion.
What I find HILARIOUS is that you bag on slow sn95 mustangs when in reality and numbers wise, the new camaro's are flat out slow. I've had LT1's and LS cars. They are quick no doubt, and the new zr1 vette continues to impress me. But I find it laughing in someones face, fall on the ground rolling that it takes 426 horsepower to get that boat to roll out a 12.0 flat. My "slow" little pathetic 5.0 SN95 can run 12's all day long SUB 300 horsepower. It's been proven, all day long, continuously again and again. Go to a track, they are everywhere, as i'm sure you know unless your pretty much blind. Between my HCI and Sniper kit, the car will be putting out damn near 500 horses, and will be knocking on the door of 10's, if not there. I just can't help but wonder where your basing your arguement off that its such a superior car, when it fact it's sub-perior to a 5.0, one of the oldest modern hotrods in the world. There is a fellow on here running 12's with factory parts, intake, heads, and cam, worked over of course, but factory 25 year old technology still.
Now, understand this is not a ignorant hate speech, nor is it a "mustang superiority" speech. I've had a new 3v, there alright. I sold it 3 months later if it tells you how much I like it. Now I drive my 5.0 everyday. Good cars, not my style, and to unmuscley (if thats a word to begin with). Take it for what it's worth.
Well he said something about a 426 Exhaust and intake camaro running 12.0's. I don't find it fast at all. I get a bit heated when someone attempts to tell one of the most economically minded and best suited for the job hotrod daily drivers that they are slow, when in fact what he defends can't get out of its own way.
Well if he has an exhaust on that car that knocked a second off of a 1/4 time, I want that exhaust, or if an exhaust will knock a second off of a new Camaro's 1/4 time, I guess I'll just have to suck it up and figure out a way to pull 500 lbs out of that car. Then, I'll just have to learn to like it the looks of it.
If you're getting that heated over a statement that someone said over the internet about a car being slow, you need to chill, man. It's no secret to anyone that the SN95s were dog-slow. Sorry, dude, but facts are facts. Claiming an SN95 Mustang was fast is like claiming a Mustang II was the best Mustang to ever come out of a Ford factory.
A NPI 4.6 is dog slow. I've had them. But to lump in a 5.0 car with that, thats not the case. My stock geared 95 with just LT's and exhaust stayed side by side with a shelby GT. Not a gt500 of course. The whole "slow" arguement is false. Always has been, always will be. I know of a couple other 94/95's running high 12's stock motored.
those Fox-Bodies only weighed around 3000-3100 lbs. It's not hard to warm up a 302ci and run some very fast times in those cars.
Man come on. My 90coupe car weighs in at 3320, my 91 Gt weighs in at 3450 Both cars full interior, Now my 90 LX vert weighs in at 3000 with K-members, no air, no power steering stock block AFR heads ported cobra intake and 56mm turbo run mid 11s on DRs. Here are some pics..
View attachment 248077
View attachment 248078
View attachment 248079
I know some will argue the LS1 Running low 13s....although the Mustang God himself Evan Smith ran a 12.87 bone stock in a 99 SS...anywho, what your claiming about running 12s bone stock in a 94 is like me claiming running low 11s in the LS1..... PPl argue 3-4 tenths with LS1 times.... your talking nearly 2 seconds on your times. Anyway im not trying to rag on you but I just cant seem to place the logic in your claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?