magazines vs the track

[Todd15Fastback]

Here is a factory, bone stock GT that ran 12.5x

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=447632&postcount=2

Sponsored

 

[EcoVert]

No 11's for a 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock 16+ Camaro SS:


CAR & DRIVER

2016 Camaro SS Convertible Automatic
4.1 sec
12.6 sec @ 113 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-convertible-test-review

2016 Camaro SS
3.9
12.3 sec @ 116
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ro-ss-vs-2015-ford-mustang-gt-comparison-test

2016 Camaro SS Automatic
3.9
12.3 sec @ 116 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTOR TREND

2016 Camaro SS Arrival (fresh engine)
4.3 sec
12.5 sec @ 114.8 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2016/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-arrival/

2016 Camaro SS First Test Review
4.0
12.4 sec @ 114.6 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-test-review/

Comparison: 2015 BMW M4 vs 2016 Camaro SS
4.1
12.4 sec @ 115.8 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

2016 Camaro SS vs. 2016 Mustang GT
4.0
12.4 sec @ 114.6 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROAD & TRACK

2016 Camaro SS vs 2016 Mustang GT
4.0
12.4 @ 114.1
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/


2016 Camaro SS
4.2
12.5 @ 113.4
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a27066/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-drive/

I will never believe any thing(general) motor trend does.

 

[ZaneWayne]

No 11's for a 100% bumper-to-bumper bone stock 16+ Camaro SS:


CAR & DRIVER

2016 Camaro SS Convertible Automatic
4.1 sec
12.6 sec @ 113 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-convertible-test-review

2016 Camaro SS
3.9
12.3 sec @ 116
http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ro-ss-vs-2015-ford-mustang-gt-comparison-test

2016 Camaro SS Automatic
3.9
12.3 sec @ 116 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTOR TREND

2016 Camaro SS Arrival (fresh engine)
4.3 sec
12.5 sec @ 114.8 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2016/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-arrival/

2016 Camaro SS First Test Review
4.0
12.4 sec @ 114.6 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-test-review/

Comparison: 2015 BMW M4 vs 2016 Camaro SS
4.1
12.4 sec @ 115.8 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...ison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

2016 Camaro SS vs. 2016 Mustang GT
4.0
12.4 sec @ 114.6 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chev...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROAD & TRACK

2016 Camaro SS vs 2016 Mustang GT
4.0
12.4 @ 114.1
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...-chevrolet-camaro-ss-vs-2016-ford-mustang-gt/


2016 Camaro SS
4.2
12.5 @ 113.4
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a27066/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-drive/

Not in the reviews. But there have been 3 or 4 guys at C6 that have ran in the 11s that are 100 percent stock.

 

[MRGTX]

Here is a factory, bone stock GT that ran 12.5x

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=447632&postcount=2

Just for the record, nobody outside of this forum thinks that 100% stock S550s are running mid 12s. It looks like it very well could be true which is encouraging.

Nearly .5 seconds is a huge gap between published numbers and these timeslips...I'm still skeptical but my mind is definitely open to this being possible.

It is technically possible to run a 12.5 with a 3750lb car on about 370hp to the ground...which seems very plausible. Unfortunately, this also means that the driver is weightless though. :shrug:

A 150lb driver (being generous here) meaning 3900lbs total, would require about 390hp to the ground. AFAIK, Autos aren't putting that much power to the wheels.

Are you guys sure these cars weren't tuned? If not...that's impressive.

I will never believe any thing(general) motor trend does.

Do you think it's a conspiracy? Whose numbers would you believe?

EDIT- wait, I thought you didn't care about performance numbers.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Just for the record, nobody outside of this forum thinks that 100% stock S550s are running mid 12s. It looks like it very well could be true which is encouraging.

Nearly .5 seconds is a huge gap between published numbers and these timeslips...I'm still skeptical but my mind is definitely open to this being possible.

It is technically possible to run a 12.5 with a 3750lb car on about 370hp to the ground...which seems very plausible. Unfortunately, this also means that the driver is weightless though. :shrug:

A 150lb driver (being generous here) meaning 3900lbs total, would require about 390hp to the ground. AFAIK, Autos aren't putting that much power to the wheels.

Are you guys sure these cars weren't tuned? If not...that's impressive.

You are now going on block since you decided to PM and let me know "You know who I am" because other members here sent you a PM to "clue" you in.

The evidence has been presented with those that have run 12.5X or tick slower. Believe what you want to believe. You refuse to use the search button to learn about how fast these cars are in stock form and just a tune/CAI, not even adding in the IM and E85 and long tube variants. I get it, you are a magazine racer and this is why you have a hard time understanding because you clearly stated as such above.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Thats the issue with magazine racers. They don't understand the variables outside of what a magazine says. Most don't even know what DA is or understand how it effects a car. Also magazines don't test on a prepped track. They use less scientific measuring devices. The list goes on. It also impossible for them to understand that magazine writers are not the best drivers on earth.

 

[MRGTX]

Thats the issue with magazine racers. They don't understand the variables outside of what a magazine says. Most don't even know what DA is or understand how it effects a car. Also magazines don't test on a prepped track. They use less scientific measuring devices. The list goes on. It also impossible for them to understand that magazine writers are not the best drivers on earth.

How do you suppose the Scatpack and the SS would fare in these same conditions?

 

[millhouse]

Just for the record, nobody outside of this forum thinks that 100% stock S550s are running mid 12s. It looks like it very well could be true which is encouraging.

Nearly .5 seconds is a huge gap between published numbers and these timeslips...I'm still skeptical but my mind is definitely open to this being possible.

It is technically possible to run a 12.5 with a 3750lb car on about 370hp to the ground...which seems very plausible. Unfortunately, this also means that the driver is weightless though. :shrug:

A 150lb driver (being generous here) meaning 3900lbs total, would require about 390hp to the ground. AFAIK, Autos aren't putting that much power to the wheels.

Are you guys sure these cars weren't tuned? If not...that's impressive.



Do you think it's a conspiracy? Whose numbers would you believe?

EDIT- wait, I thought you didn't care about performance numbers.

Foxbodies were high 13 second capable stock...more than 1/2 second off from the typical magazine pace. Is it the norm, no. Track prep and drivers can make all the difference in the world. Get that 60' down and watch how quickly the ETs drop.

 

[1320']

People will cling to magazine tests because they'll generally be slower, for a number of reasons.

For example..my old 2010 Challenger R/T (a5)..magazines said it shouldn't have been able to run faster than a 13.8 @10 0 MPH..my best personal time (stock on stock tires) was 13.26 @ 105MPH. Why? I was on a very sticky drag strip in pretty good air. It was consistently a 13.4-13.5 car @ 103ish, and the slowest pass it ever made was 13.6 @ 102.85

People are discounting the S550 times because they need to...mostly for their own self-worth issues. They NEED the S550 to be slower to keep themselves feeling good about their S197/Gen5/etc. They NEED it to be slower because then they won't be able to strut as much. Anyone who thinks the S550 automatics haven't been in the mid-upper 12's bone stock is just plain wrong, end of story.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Exactly right. Over on Camaro6 the S550 is a 13 second. And Every Camaro SS is an 11 second car. It just fits the narrative. Several of the guys over there we're talking about how they handle bolt on mustangs with ease. I put it out there that I have a bolt on Mustang and haven't lost to a 6th gen yet. I would love to get another couple YouTube videos of me beating 6th gens. Have heard back from any of them.

 

[PJR202]

Just for the record, nobody outside of this forum thinks that 100% stock S550s are running mid 12s. It looks like it very well could be true which is encouraging.

Nearly .5 seconds is a huge gap between published numbers and these timeslips...I'm still skeptical but my mind is definitely open to this being possible.

It is technically possible to run a 12.5 with a 3750lb car on about 370hp to the ground...which seems very plausible. Unfortunately, this also means that the driver is weightless though. :shrug:

A 150lb driver (being generous here) meaning 3900lbs total, would require about 390hp to the ground. AFAIK, Autos aren't putting that much power to the wheels.

Are you guys sure these cars weren't tuned? If not...that's impressive.



Do you think it's a conspiracy? Whose numbers would you believe?

EDIT- wait, I thought you didn't care about performance numbers.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I've seen several base dyno runs for a stock S550 anywhere from 378 to 390.

 

[1320']

A lot of people think automatics are fool proof when it comes to drag racing...in terms of shifting, yeah..they largely are since the computer does it.

However, it's all for nothing if you don't launch for shit. You have to know at what RPM to launch, how long to heat the tires, at what pressure, how long to keep the car up on the converter..are you going to shallow or deep stage...?

The difference between a 12.5 run and a 12.9 run is all in the 60' time, which is 100% driver controlled..automatic or manual. Botch your launch and cut a 2.2 short time? You'll run slow. Heat the tires right, stage correctly, launch well and cut a 1.9 60'? You just shaved 3/10th's off your quarter run, and at least 1mph, if not 2.

Most of the "HUUURURUREUR the new mustang is a PIG HURUURUR" people are morons who haven't seriously raced a day in their entire lives, and live their entire racing careers behind keyboards racing magazine stats and talking shit.

 

[MRGTX]

Exactly right. Over on Camaro6 the S550 is a 13 second. And Every Camaro SS is an 11 second car. It just fits the narrative. Several of the guys over there we're talking about how they handle bolt on mustangs with ease. I put it out there that I have a bolt on Mustang and haven't lost to a 6th gen yet. I would love to get another couple YouTube videos of me beating 6th gens. Have heard back from any of them.

I think you nailed it...unless you want to say that Camaro owners are an inferior race of human beings than we are...it stands to reason that we're probably seeing the distortion over here.

Don't say it

 

[MRGTX]

A lot of good points have been made in this thread but we're overlooking something significant- the "magazines" (or their online counterparts) are doing ROAD TESTS. There's a reason why they don't prep the track, mess with tire pressures, tune and tweak...that's not their intention.

 

[millhouse]

A lot of good points have been made in this thread but we're overlooking something significant- the "magazines" (or their online counterparts) are doing ROAD TESTS. There's a reason why they don't prep the track, mess with tire pressures, tune and tweak...that's not their intention.

Right...which is why we don't magazine race.

Shaving 1/2 second off of a magazine time on a prepped track and a seasoned driver usually isn't that difficult....unless of course the vehicle already has an uncanny ability to launch on the street.

Sponsored