i beat one

Discussion in '1994 Ford Mustang GT' started by 2000v6, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: i beat one

    Again (since you can't seem to grasp anything), track racing is more popular on TV, you are right on that. What you don't seem to understand is that for the general public, drag racing is the #1 way to test the performance of their vehicles. Drag racing isn't that popular to watch on TV because it's boring to watch, just like golf is boring to watch, doesn't mean people don't play it though now does it. You don't uderstand the real world. Football is the most televised sport in America (or at least one of them), and yet for the general public Golf is probably the most played. Seems weird huh...doesn't seem right, doesn't go with your economics does it?
    I believe, other people believe, and magazines believe that the mach 1 is a low 13 second car, if you don't want to believe it (hmmm, now thats odd) go right ahead. The other magazines that you talk about also can't get the Cobra or the z06 to run under 13 seconds, sad.
    I don't understand why you can't believe a mustang is fast, oh, maybe because you're a tool.
     
  2. Re: i beat one

    He doesn't believe a mustang is fast for the same reason I don't belive a mustang is fast.

    IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT. Not unless heavily modified.
     
  3. Re: i beat one

    My economics are fine.....it`s your data that is skewed. Golf has more air time in the U.S. than NCAA AND NFL Football combined. Throw in NCAA Basketball and you might have a competition.
    By the way...how long have they had the Golf Channel going.....and now they are JUST starting to come up with an NFL channel.....

    You BELIEVE (key word there). A MAGAZINE (no S there) believes.

    Those other three magazines, Car and Driver, MotorTrend, and Road and Track seem to have a pretty good handle on the car industry....and are respected pillars of vehicle performance. The Z06 ran under 13....12.8 I believe. Even MMFF had three 13+ second runs on the Cobra....sad, right? We`ve been over this before.
     
  4. Re: i beat one

    Yes they did have a 13 second run with the cobra. One run where they said they spun and then one were they missed a gear. We have been over this before and you don't seem to get it (big surprise).
    And your economics are not fine, they are off.
     
  5. Re: i beat one

    "He doesn't believe a mustang is fast for the same reason I don't belive a mustang is fast."
    And the reason being that your a tool and a complete moron?

    "Not unless heavily modified."
    You are right, unless the v-6 mustang is modified it is not really that fast. Although when compared to other cars in its price range it is...civic si, etc...
    Now the GT on the other hand is pretty fast, running low 14's and high 13's all day long, not to bad for $22,000.
    The mach 1 is even faster, low 13's all day long, very nice.
    And the SVT Cobra, mid 12's, now that's freaking fast.
    Compare that to a 300zx, new which cost around $40,000, and ran a mid 13...fast and a lot of money...cobra, $34,000, and will run 12's all day...hmmm...cheaper and faster, nice.

    I don't believe you have a 300zx for the same reasons other people don't believe you have a 300zx.
    Because your intelligence suggest that you couldn't handle more then bicycle with training wheels on it (and that might even be to much for you).
     
  6. #56 27GTR, Mar 21, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: i beat one

    So once again, by omission, you have admitted your data is wrong.

    And they had 2 13 second runs, one spinning, one perfect.

    If a professional spins, it shows the car is difficult to handle....and it is not a consistent runner.

    Your Magazine....
    http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0208mmff_deathmatch/index.html
    As for unfettered runs....
    "the Cobra an equally disappointing but far quicker 13.128 at 109.97."
    "Cobra time again. Smith got too aggressive on the launch and the 60-ft. time climbed to 2.219, with the ET rising to 13.188 at 107.33. "

    Two 13 second runs....."but it can run 12's all day"....right.

    As for the Mach 1 running low 13's all day....if the major magazines can't do it...I have no confidence in a Ford based magazine saying it's possible. (You might as well say that religious group successfully cloned babies.....THEY say they did it....do you believe them too?)
     
  7. Re: i beat one

    "So once again, by omission, you have admitted your data is wrong."
    What the f^ck are you talking about? How is my data wrong again?


    "If a professional spins, it shows the car is difficult to handle....and it is not a consistent runner."
    Pro drag racers spin sometimes too, it happens no matter how good you are. You could drive a neon to a 8,000hp dragster or anything in between and get the tires loose, it happens. It doesn't mean the car is difficult to handle...lol...


    ""Cobra time again. Smith got too aggressive on the launch and the 60-ft. time climbed to 2.219, with the ET rising to 13.188 at 107.33. "
    Again you proved yourself wrong. Too aggressive on the launch...meaning he spun. Understand...again I highly doubt it.

    "As for the Mach 1 running low 13's all day....if the major magazines can't do it...I have no confidence in a Ford based magazine saying it's possible. (You might as well say that religious group successfully cloned babies.....THEY say they did it....do you believe them too?)"
    Well, once MM@FF starts saying that the mustang was created by aliens then I'll side with you, until then I'll take their word over yours anyday.
    You see that "religious group" that said they cloned a human baby...they also said that aliens brought us to earth to live...something MM@FF has yet to state, giving them a lot more credibility.

     
  8. Re: i beat one

    again your numbers are askew.

    Mustang GT= 14.7 quarter mile
    300 zx TT with 80K miles=13.8's

    Comparing a Z to a mustang is a very sad comparo. the Z can handle turns, the mustang cannot.


    I Don't care what you believe. I DO believe you own a mustang, it seems right up your ally. Slow and can't turn worth a dam, no class and very redneckish. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  9. Re: i beat one

    "You are right, unless the v-6 mustang is modified it is not really that fast. Although when compared to other cars in its price range it is...civic si, etc..."

    I'm going to totally ignore the Type-R (which btw is still in the same price range), and cut right to the SI, tell me, how fast is the V6 Mustang 0-60, 1/4 mile?

    I don't want to start another argument, but as I said before, I beat my Doc. in his Auto 2000 Mustang GT, even if he wasn't going as fast as he possibly could, I'm pretty sure the V6 Stang would be slower, so if I could beat a V6 Stang in my Civic SI, then a 2002 SI which is more than 2 seconds quicker to 60 should have little difficulty beating a Mustang V6.
     
  10. Re: i beat one

    Are you f^cking retarded?
    Mustang GT: 13.7 seconds (most people will get high 13's low 14's).
    The times you are giving seems to be an auto vert, not a 5 speed coupe, or even an auto couple for that matter.

    "I DO believe you own a mustang, it seems right up your ally. Slow and can't turn worth a dam, no class and very redneckish. "
    LOL...Slow...it's just as fast as a $40,000 300zx, guess that makes that car slow also. Can't turn huh, why did they put a steering wheel in them then. That comment alone shows your lack of any knowledge on the mustangs, or any car for that matter. No class huh, it's got more class and history then your 300zx. Redneckish...well if that's the case you must be the biggest r!ceboy in the world. Idiot.
     
  11. Re: i beat one

    "I'm going to totally ignore the Type-R (which btw is still in the same price range), and cut right to the SI, tell me, how fast is the V6 Mustang 0-60, 1/4 mile?"
    Here's what I found.
    2002 Civic SI
    Instrumented testing backed up this impression. Zero-to-60 mph took 8.1 seconds, the slowest of the three cars and 0.6 seconds off the Focus's time. The quarter-mile time of 16.1 seconds at 86.8 mph was also off the pace. If there's a bright spot for the powertrain, it's likely the transmission. Thanks to a rally-style shifter mounted on the dash and a smooth-acting clutch, drivers can crack off impressively quick shifts.
    MSRP of Test Vehicle: $19,440

    I did not find any times for the v-6 mustang though. Seems nobody likes to test them when they have the GT, Mach 1, and SVT Cobra to play around with when testing times.
    I did go to MustnagWorld.com and asked in their forums what the v-6 stangs run. Most people said high 15's and mid 7's for the 0-60 time.
    They have 195hp, and 225lb-ft of torque, weighing in at around 3100lbs (this is off I'm sure, but the GT's weigh 3200lbs, so the v-6 should weigh less).

    "I don't want to start another argument, but as I said before, I beat my Doc. in his Auto 2000 Mustang GT, even if he wasn't going as fast as he possibly could, I'm pretty sure the V6 Stang would be slower, so if I could beat a V6 Stang in my Civic SI, then a 2002 SI which is more than 2 seconds quicker to 60 should have little difficulty beating a Mustang V6."
    That entire story sounds like bs. Unless your SI is running low 14's, or Doc. is a shitty driver. The v-6 is more then a match for the SI's.
     
  12. Re: i beat one

    Read my post again. There`s that theme, once more, reading comprehension.

    TWO 13 second run....one spinning...ONE NOT! Almost the same result....

    As for your skewed data....Air time for Golf vs Football. You THOUGHT Football had more....but go look it up. Seems the same for drag racing and track racing...you THINK drag racing is more popular....

    No they haven`t said aliens brought us to earth to live....but they did say a production model Mach 1 can run low 13`s.....that`s just as ridiculous<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  13. Re: i beat one

    I'mv ery drunk right now, so forgive mer if I'm a bot inaccurate in my numbers.

    The Civic SI weighs 2744lbs, which works out to approx. 128.6 bhp/tonne while the V6 stang has approx. 138.7bhp/tonne the fastest 0-60 time I've seen for the the SI was 6.9, but the majority of sources achieve mid to high 7's I can't remember what most 1/4 times I've seen were, but 16.1 sounds about right, given the slightly higher drivetrain hp loss of the Mustang (RWD's generally lose about 6% more than FWD's, the Mustang loses about 15%-17%, while the Civic loses about 8%-11%), and these acceleration times, I'd say they're fairly evenly matched in acceleration.

    Yeah, I know it sounds unrealistic, but you have to remember, it was a 22yr. old amateur rally racer against a 40+ yr. old doctor who knows virtually nil about driving, I don't think he was trying all that hard as it was all in good fun, but remember, I dunno about your experiences, but in mine, Automatics are too sluggish. I don't know what I'd be running as I've never run a timed 1/4 mile, but I'd imagine somewhere between 15 and 17 seconds (likely closer to 17, given that professional drivers generally get 15+ on new SI's which have 30 more hp and 30 more lbft torque than me, but then who knows, I jsu might be excepthoinl with my fhifting, and a lot of people seem to be in agreement that the older Civic SI's have better power delivery than the newer ones). I think in acceleration the V6 would be a bit faster, but when it comes to a twisty road the SI would be quicker, they're pretty close in performance thought.
     
  14. Re: i beat one

    Here`s another shot at the Cobra`s 12`s...

    Sport Compact Car, pg 110 Apr 03.....
    I quote "This Cobra didn`t do 12`s. Turns out 3,640 pounds has a way of putting a damper on your 390 (claimed, crank) hp. The best we could manage was a 13.4 at 109.2 mph. Fast, yes, but not what we`d heard.
    Printing a number like 13.4, we`ll surely be called a bunch of FWD sissies who can`t drag race. Anticipating this response, we asked Cameron Evans, editor of our sister pubilcation, "Popular Hot Rodding," to give it a try, but the car just wouldn`t go any faster."

    As far as handling, the SVT Focus was much better stock. As for braking, 120ft in the Focus vs 126 in the Cobra from 60mph. A 700 foot slalom best of 67.2 mph in the Cobra vs the 71.5 of the Focus (they also called the Cobra`s steering vague...ouch).


    13.4 best. And you want me to believe it can ran a whole SECOND faster? ...or even a half second faster?
     
  15. Re: i beat one

    Let's break this down shall we.
    "This Cobra didn`t do 12`s. Turns out 3,640 pounds has a way of putting a damper on your 390 (claimed, crank) hp. The best we could manage was a 13.4 at 109.2 mph. Fast, yes, but not what we`d heard. "
    They also said this about the cobra r, which is more then capable of running in the 12's. At the time they did say they couldn't handle the torque of the R at all, and they just spun at the start, not knowing at what RPM to launch, etc.

    "Printing a number like 13.4, we`ll surely be called a bunch of FWD sissies who can`t drag race. Anticipating this response, we asked Cameron Evans, editor of our sister pubilcation, "Popular Hot Rodding," to give it a try, but the car just wouldn`t go any faster.""
    How fast did he go though? Not any faster huh...?

    "As far as handling, the SVT Focus was much better stock. As for braking, 120ft in the Focus vs 126 in the Cobra from 60mph. A 700 foot slalom best of 67.2 mph in the Cobra vs the 71.5 of the Focus (they also called the Cobra`s steering vague...ouch)."
    Hmmm again odd...they don't like the handling of a 3600lb car, even though they are called Sport Compact Car...odd isn't it, that they drive small cars for a living and when a larger one comes along they can't handle it well.
    Also, while 6 ft is to be expected, the focus wheighs in at probably 2600lbs, 1000lbs less, and is tuned to be a track car, with nice big brakes.
    You will never believe that the cobra is a 12 second car, why sould you, when a magazine with such a non biased staff said it couldn't go faster then 13.4...(do you sense the sarcasm). It wheighs just a little more then the camaro ss, has around 80hp more, and around 50 more lb-ft of torque, yet YOU want me to believe that it's slower or only just as fast...NO. Come on, don't be a complete jackass Boredup.
     
  16. Re: i beat one

    I posted those times to and all you could do is resort to lame ass insults.

    Lets take another good example of a mustang. The Kenny Brown 320X, For $43,000 you get a mustang with close to 320HP and a bunch of handling upgrades. It ran a 14.1 according to C&D, yet YOUR mustang is faster? explain that one.

    How about the october 2001 issue of C&D where they tested the cobra R, viper and Z06. They managed a 13 flat on with cobra R. 12's maybe, but really really high 12's. For $56K that's not fast.

    Just for fun I went and got my May 2001 issue of C&D where thet throughly tested the mustang GT. With a 6 second 0-60 time and a 14.7 quarter miles it puts it on par with the WRX, which is $4k less than the mustang. The top speed of 139 makes it even with passat. It's 70-0 braking distance of a whopping 184 feet rivals that of the Mazda MPV. Where as the skidpad numbers of .82G's makes it even with the 4 door acura TL type S.

    Make you feel better? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  17. Re: i beat one

    Well first you got a couple of things wrong.
    1.The 2001 cobra runs a 13.4 quarter mile, and for $28,000 new jackass. I don't know anything about the kenny brown stang, but if it's only running 14.1...well they need a new driver.
    2.Cobra R...high 12 second car. $56,000 for a race ready mustang, one of which only 300 were built, it's a collectors item. You won't find one for less then $60,000 right now. A lot of money yes...fast yes...worth it, if you wanted a racecar or a real collectors car yes.
    3.The WRX is not 4k less then the GT, base GT, $22,000, base wrx, $25,000. Mustang GT high 13 second car. WRX low 14 second car.

    Get your facts straight.
     
  18. Re: i beat one

    ...and yet your "non-biased" magazine ran 13`s as often as it ran 12`s....high 12`s at that.

    Pot calling the kettle black.

    It`s just another example how ridiculous YOU are being.

    What`s the point of listing his times....if he couldn`t get any faster, he couldn`t get any faster. That`s the point. Don`t you think if he was misrepresented he would say something? Especially being the editor of Popular Hot Rodding!

    And it`s funny....they RAVE about the handling of an R34 (as does everyone else)...and it`s almost a 3500lb car.

    By the way...there`s a 200lb difference between the SS and Cobra.
    With SS`s averaging mid-13`s, it`s not a conflict at all that the Cobra runs around a 13.1.......
     
  19. Re: i beat one

    Well first lets get a few things stright.

    I never mentioned ANYTHING about the 2001 cobra. I was talking about the cobra R. Which according to C&D ran a 13 flat, that is a low 13 second car, not a high 12 car.

    $56,000 is far too expensive for a mustang period.


    I never said anything about a base model anything. The C&D prices were "as tested". C&D does not usually test bottom of the line cars as well. The mustang was, $29,355 where as the WRX was $24,520. So what you are saying is that the mustang had $7,355 worth the options?

    Their times also prove you wrong.
    numbers are as followed.
    0-60/quarter mile/top speed/70-0/G's

    WRX-5.8/14.7/140/188/.82
    mustang gt-6.0/14.7/139/184/.82

    Congrats your car is just as fast as an AWD sedan with an engine half the size. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>

    FACTS ARE QUOTED FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE, I WOULD CONSIDER C&D CREDIBLE. THE MUSTANG ISSUE WAS (5/01) AND THE wrx ISSUE WAS (4/01)



    this might help you:

    Main Entry: fact
    Pronunciation: 'fakt
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
    Date: 15th century
    1 : a thing done: as a : obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c : archaic : ACTION
    2 : archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
    3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
    4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
    5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
    - in fact : in truth

     
  20. Re: i beat one

    Holy shit moron, the mustang GT starts out at $22,000, and tops off at $28,000 (that's a fully loaded vert, FULLY LOADED). The mach 1 starts out at $29,000, not the GT, get your FACTS straight.

    "I never mentioned ANYTHING about the 2001 cobra. I was talking about the cobra R. Which according to C&D ran a 13 flat, that is a low 13 second car, not a high 12 car."
    I know you didn't mention the 2001 cobra...this is one of those times that reading comprehention would have been great on your part. Go reread what I said, oh hell never mind you'll never get it anyhow.
    I was talking about the Kenny Brown stang that YOU mentioned, comparing it to the 2001 cobra. Come on, it's not that hard to understand kid.

    "$56,000 is far too expensive for a mustang period."
    And $40,000 isn't to much for a 300zx...? The cobra R is already getting well over it's sticker price in resale...not bad for a mustang.

    Why do you even post, you're a moron, everybody knows it, that's why you've been banned around 5 times, get out of here.
     
  21. Re: i beat one

    The SS averages low 13's (hell even a very high 12 once in a while). So having more HP, more torque, and only a little more weight, it makes sense that the cobra is faster.
     
  22. Re: i beat one

    My FACTS came right outta C&D mag.

    Ahh, lame wanna be insults again.

    BTW: I have only been banned twice.

    I boight my 300zx for less than $12K, and I have still yet to be beat by a mustang, not like it will ever happen <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  23. Re: i beat one

    I think it is just your general confusion as to how fast ALL these cars ago.

    According to the real magazines....Car and Driver, Road and Track, MotorTrend, AutoTrend, AutoCar, Motoring....Your times are about a half second high ACROSS the board. Makes sense why you are confused. You`ve been hanging out on too many "I ran 12s in my stock SS" websites......
     
  24. Re: i beat one

    The camaro ss ran a best time of 12.9 in last a summer issue of MM@FF. I highly doubt that such a "biased" magazine like them would write about such a fast time from the stangs main rival.
    Maybe you should get your head out of SuperMoronOne's ass.
     
  25. Re: i beat one

    That post was brimming with intellect. Do you happen to have PROOF of this so called "fast" SS? I would trust C&D over MM&FF anyday. They ran 13.3's in it. Show us, scan it in, get a link do what you have to do. Otherwise you are pulling numbers out of your vagina.

    You Fail.
     

Share This Page