Real World Test by the SCCA.

[bluebeastsrt]

Yup i say lets not trust the bench racing magazine numbers, or these legit track records, but trust to some random mustang forum member's words lol.

Now, the fifth gen 1le is infact faster so it seems now what? Is six gen ss or ss 1le going to be slower than a gtpp? Can we defy laws of physics or science? I see alot of people here with modes talking down on new camaro's. Who else is driving their s550 stock, daily, 4 seasons including negative temperatures, occasionally tracking? Who really gives a damn about their factory warranty?

Why is it still hard to accept the new camaro is infact faster than a stock s550 on equal standards. Its either 13 seconds vs 12.99 or 12.5 vs 12.49 seconds who cares. Lets send our gratitude to thePill for posting this valuable information.

I don't hear anyone not accepting it. (well maybe the pill) I hear people saying who cares? Stock Camaros are faster than stock Mustangs. Now what? How does that effect me? Both Mustangs I own are mildly modded to say the least. Is there some kind rule where you guys race that only allows bone stock cars? Am I supposed to stop at a red light and ask the guy revving at me in the other lane. Do you have a tune and a CAI? Because if you do. I cant race you......Forum rules in effect!

Sponsored

 

[Taneras]

LOL. I called the Honda race correctly. A crap driver in a faster car got beat by a guy in a slower yet modded car. How often in life are all things equal? Camaro is faster stock. So I went out and made my car faster then a stock Camaro! Project that now. A stock Camaro will probably out run you. Their not beating me!

So the GT would have won if the driver was better and the mods/whatever else were even... Where did I hear that one before?

Oh yea...

All the real racers at the track just call that a lose. The forum jockeys will come over to you and will say damn. You would have won if he was stock and not such a good driver.

Just call it what it was. A loss. No need to get defensive or bitter about it (like you did in that Honda thread). I'd actually respect your stance if it was actually applied across the board.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

So the GT would have won if the driver was better and the mods/whatever else were even... Where did I hear that one before?

Oh yea...



Just call it what it was. A loss. No need to get defensive or bitter about it (like you did in that Honda thread). I'd actually respect your stance if it was actually applied across the board.

Ahh say no more. Your feelings are still hurt over the Honda thread. That's old news my friend. Don't be such a little girl and just let it go. We are talking about Camaros not Accords. Try to stay on point. It's starting to feel like a personal thing. Instead of just your opinion on any kind of racing. If it's a personal thing take it to PM so you don't ruin a perfectly acceptable thread for the VS. section.

 

[Taneras]

I don't hear anyone not accepting it. (well maybe the pill) I hear people saying who cares? Stock Camaros are faster than stock Mustangs. Now what? How does that effect me? Both Mustangs I own are mildly modded to say the least. Is there some kind rule where you guys race that only allows bone stock cars? Am I supposed to stop at a red light and ask the guy revving at me in the other lane. Do you have a tune and a CAI? Because if you do. I cant race you......Forum rules in effect!

Honestly, who is that hardcore about a stock vs stock comparison?

Speaking personally, and others seem to share this based on what I've seen on the forums, I think people just want a benchmark to see where these cars start out. The issue starts when people get butthurt when their favorite car isn't the fastest. That's when the arguing starts. Instead of accepting it and calling it a day, they bring up excuses or brush it off as if it doesn't matter.

 

[Taneras]

Ahh say no more. Your feelings are still hurt over the Honda thread. That's old news my friend. Don't be such a little girl and just let it go. We are talking about Camaros not Accords. Try to stay on point. It's starting to feel like a personal thing. Instead of just your opinion on any kind of racing. If it's a personal thing take it to PM so you don't ruin a perfectly acceptable thread for the VS. section.

Nope, just pointing out that you don't practice what you preach. Simple as that.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Honestly, who is that hardcore about a stock vs stock comparison?

Speaking personally, and others seem to share this based on what I've seen on the forums, I think people just want a benchmark to see where these cars start out. The issue starts when people get butthurt when their favorite car isn't the fastest. That's when the arguing starts. Instead of accepting it and calling it a day, they bring up excuses or brush it off as if it doesn't matter.

The Camaro is faster stock! Now what?

 

[Taneras]

The Camaro is faster stock! Now what?

Bama was better than Clemson in the National Championship. Now what?

Person X beat person Y in the Voice, or American Idol. Now what?

Steve got that promotion over Jeff. Now what?

I'm just not sure what more you're expecting to come from a head to head comparison. There were results, one was better than the other (at least in one particular area). Is this your gotcha question? I've seen this "Now what?" question repeated often in your last few posts as if its some sort of unbeatable rebuttal.

Maybe someone else can explain to me what he's getting at?

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Bama was better than Clemson in the National Championship. Now what?

Person X beat person Y in the Voice, or American Idol. Now what?

Steve got that promotion over Jeff. Now what?

I'm just not sure what more you're expecting to come from a head to head comparison. There were results, one was better than the other (at least in one particular area). Is this your gotcha question? I've seen this "Now what?" question repeated often in your last few posts as if its some sort of unbeatable rebuttal.

Maybe someone else can explain to me what he's getting at?

Well you seams like you needed to hear that. You want to discuss strictly stock vs stock. That discussion is now over. The Camaro wins. What don't you understand? If it were up to you. Every thread in the VS section would be. X car is faster than Y car stock. A magazine says so. What's the point of having a VS section? There is no apposing opinion according to you! Why not just post a link to Motor trend? Nobody needs to reply or offer a differing opinion. Because Stock VS stock is all that really matters to everyone on this forum. Right?. Do you understand now?

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Well you seams like you needed to hear that. You want to discuss strictly stock vs stock. That discussion is now over. The Camaro wins. What don't you understand? If it were up to you. Every thread in the VS section would be. X car is faster than Y car stock. A magazine says so. What's the point of having a VS section? There is no apposing opinion according to you! Why not just post a link to Motor trend? Nobody needs to reply or offer a differing opinion. Because Stock VS stock is all that really matters according to you. Do you understand now?

I think this is the same Taneras that posted over at SVTP that had a ton of drama follow him around, too.

If not, my apologies.

 

[Taneras]

Well you seams like you needed to hear that. You want to discuss strictly stock vs stock. That discussion is now over. The Camaro wins. What don't you understand? If it were up to you. Every thread in the VS section would be. X car is faster than Y car stock. A magazine says so. What's the point of having a VS section? There is no apposing opinion according to you! Why not just post a link to Motor trend? Nobody needs to reply or offer a differing opinion. Because Stock VS stock is all that really matters to everyone on this forum. Right?. Do you understand now?

EDIT: I think I see what's up. The irrelevant comment about the SCCA and there not being a stock vs stock comparison was more aimed at conversations I've had in the past with thePill. Basically, if the mustangs start losing he bitches about how the restrictions are too much, if they start winning its clearly because of how great the car really is. That's why I called the SCCA comparisons, at least the classes I've seen thePill discuss, irrelevant. It's basically a contest between drivers/cars where an organization is telling you to what extent you can modify your car. They'll restrict horsepower, add weight, etc. To me this is the worst way to try and compare street vehicles.

I think I chose your post to reply to because of your remark about real world testing because I found it a really odd comment to make. Honestly it seems like some people, and both sides are guilty of it, are dismissive of the magazine articles that don't put their favorite car/brand on top. And any mention of these articles is demonized. Sorta like the Honda thread where instead of just assigning the win/loss you made excuses about driver skill and not all things being equal.

 

[Memphis]

The Camaro is faster stock! Now what?

Now deal with it in a racing class that relies on stock vehicles with very little to no modification

But WAIT! You like straight lines so mod away!!!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Taneras]

I think this is the same Taneras that posted over at SVTP that had a ton of drama follow him around, too.

If not, my apologies.

It'd be an odd coincidence because I think its a unique name but it wasn't not me. I have lurked a bit there in the 2011-2013 section when I was interested in superchargers but I don't recall ever joining.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Sorta like the Honda thread where instead of just assigning the win/loss you made excuses about driver skill and not all things being equal.

You keep bringing up a Honda thread like it has bearing on this conversation. But I'll humor you. You say I made excuses for a shitty driven Mustang GT losing to an accord. Do you believe a stock Accord is anywhere near the same realm of performance as a Mustang GT? Come on this is an easy one. So by Me saying the driver of the GT sucked at drag racing in the other thread. Was I either pointing out a simple and obvious fact? Or was I making an excuse? Are GTs and Accords really close enough in performance in your opinion. That they warrant comparison? That I shouldn't be surprised if the Honda wins?The Mustang lost why??? You tell me?

 

[Taneras]

You keep bringing up a Honda thread like it has bearing on this conversation. But I'll humor you. You say I made excuses for a shitty driven Mustang GT losing to an accord. Do you believe a stock Accord is anywhere near the same realm of performance as a Mustang GT? Come on this is an easy one. So by Me saying the driver of the GT sucked at drag racing in the other thread. Was I either pointing out a simple and obvious fact? Or was I making an excuse? Are GTs and Accords really close enough in performance in your opinion. That they warrant comparison? That I shouldn't be surprised if the Honda wins?The Mustang lost why??? You tell me?

Obviously the GT is a far superior car on the drag strip and even a poorly driven one should beat a stock Accord's dream run. However this Accord wasn't stock, a factor you mentioned in a comment you said earlier about how real racers just call it a win/loss and the forum jockeys come out and make excuses about driver skill and which car had what modifications.

Of those two (real racers simply calling a win a win or a loss a loss and forum jockeys talking about driver skill and modifications) which do you think your comments fall under?

That's my point. That's the attitude I'm talking about. And that's probably why you aren't a fan of the magazine tests. I probably dislike the results as much as you do, but I don't dismiss just because I don't like them.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Obviously the GT is a far superior car on the drag strip and even a poorly driven one should beat a stock Accord's dream run. However this Accord wasn't stock, a factor you mentioned in a comment you said earlier about how real racers just call it a win/loss and the forum jockeys come out and make excuses about driver skill and which car had what modifications.

Of those two (real racers simply calling a win a win or a loss a loss and forum jockeys talking about driver skill and modifications) which do you think your comments fall under?

That's my point. That's the attitude I'm talking about. And that's probably why you aren't a fan of the magazine tests. I probably dislike the results as much as you do, but I don't dismiss just because I don't like them.

I give up. I pointed out the obvious in a Honda thread. That apparently bothered you by the way you keep bringing it up. I say stock VS stock the Camaro is a little faster. That's not good enough for you either! You need to consider the fact that Mustangs and Camaros and SRTs are all close enough in performance to be considered drivers races. Unlike an Accord VS a GT! You don't race. I get that. You have no idea about what I'm talking about when I mention real racers. Go buy a Camaro. Come down to Atco and race me. When you lose. Tell everyone. If I was stock, how you would have won. Explain to everyone how Camaros run 11s stock all day long according to the interwebs. While your clutching your 13 second slip. Roll up your copy of Motor Trend and show it to everyone. Point out to them that it says you should have won right here. Get used to people laughing and rolling their eyes at you. I'm done with this one. My head hurts from trying to make sense of you.

Sponsored