Ford Performance touring and sport exhaust are both 30 lbs lighter than the stock unit. Were not even talking 2018's which make 25 HP more than my gen GT stock.īase 2015-2017 GT weighs 3705 lbs. 3~.4 seconds faster on the 1/4 mile if you compare fast lists between the two (Manual to Manual and Auto to Auto) on the bone stock lists. I like how they cherry pick the worst results they could get for the GT and then cherry pick the best results they could get for the SS.makes no sense. Camaro comparrison, where their GT suddenly ran 13.2 now that was running 12.8's and claimed the SS was way faster). Maybe their 28.6 (that they rounded up to 29 seconds in a Mustang vs. The real times people run with these cars are quite different than what the mags get and the mags have quite a bit of inconsistency amongst themselves and even within themselves. Road and track had very different results and they were much closer across the board between both cars, with the SS being slightly faster as expect, it has 20 hp more. But 29S for the GT when it did 25.4 previously? Maybe a head wind? Some one ran 87? it's speed to 140 which it was faster by 2s than the GT. SS power band falls off fast past 6k, more so than the GT's so it makes sense why that last 10 mph takes substantially more time on the SS vs. Two different days of course, but much closer. R&T got 26.7s to 150 for the SS and 26.4s for the GT. Oh the gen 6 camaro forum lit up with that one, claiming the mustang is 15% slower than the SS to it's top speed because of one 40k mile data point that didn't fit their own initial results nor that of other magazines. Same with the SS, it was slightly faster at 40k miles for every acceleration point. But for every other speed in the 40k mile test, the GT was a bit faster after break in as would be expected. For the acceleration test they got 25.4 seconds to 150 in their initial testing.the next time they got 28.6 to 150 in their long term test. There are so many inconsistencies with these review mags it's not funny.even with C&D for example, look at their test spec sheets. That's lost power in each gear that adds up quickly. So instead of that nice broad table top torque band that variable valve timing gets you, you get a peak in the middle instead of the table top. Yet we know even though the gen 2 coyote looses only 5 hp on the top end, it looses nearly 25 ft-lbs of torque in the mid-range at 3k5 and at about 5k.
Alabama driving manual 2018 manuals#
I found a few tests where they were running 87 in the GT (road and track) but 91 or 92 in the camaro.because the camaro user manual says 91+ recommended while the ford user manuals says 87+ recommended. I'd be surprised if it was in the low 3800 lbs range.Įngine tuning also plays a factor as does fuel. I'd expect my GT PP curb weight to weigh in at about 3740 range since it is a base model optioned with the Performance Package and rear park assist only. You can shave off 42 lbs from the GT just by running some forged for flow formed light weight wheels. When were talking 0.1~0.3 seconds difference, 150~175 lbs matters. I think the shaker is a 550 watt system.throw in hefty premium seats etc., some added sound dampening inside the doors / under the body and there's your 100~150 lbs. Big power speakers require large heavy magnets and a heavy duty amp, period. The Gen 5 SS's run no quicker than 12.5's stock, so right no par with the 2015-2017 GT's.Ī 9 speak audio system alone could add 50lbs for example. I think that's because people are doing what I did, to keep the weight down, just getting a base GT optioned up with only the Performance Package and that's making up another 0.1~0.2 seconds on average, putting it neck and neck with the latest gen SS. That's quite a bit quicker than the test results. While the current gen mustangs are running 12.5's and there's even one that ran a 12.3 on his 6A PP GT.
1~.2 seconds quicker than the C&D / Motor Trend results, but not any quicker than that bone stock, so they are close to what the car can do. Also if you look at the forum fast lists for the Gen 6 SS and current gen GT's (2015-2017), the gen 6 SS's run about. The 2018 GT tested in C&D was doesn't make any sense why it gains so much weight compared to a base model which is still listed on Ford's website at 3705 for all gen 6 mustang manuals, 2015, 2016, 2017 and the new 2018's. I don't see why given the insane 50k price point it isn't the same fully optioned GT setup, which explains why it's so portly. You'll loose a good 50~60lbs by dumping the premium goodies at least, if not more. Their manual 2015 Premium GT with PP optioned in was at 3825lbs and they ran a 12.8 at 112. Motor Trend admitted a Premium model optioned with the Performance Package when the tested the 2015's a couple years ago:
0 kommentar(er)
