Run for cover! (The Ford Mustang Thread)

[Kchrpm]

IME, MT never gets their numbers right. I don't know why - I don't know if they have bad tools or an agenda, but they just can't be trusted. My first (embarrassing) exposure to this was in the '80s when they reported an '88 Saab 900T convertible had a 7 second 0-60, almost a full second quicker than the lighter and legitimately faster '87 SPG - both their own numbers. Today I actually don't remember what the 0-60 on these cars were, but there is no way a convertible is faster than a -400lb +15hp SPG. Ever since then, I've taken their reports with a grain of salt.

Easy answer: Saab sent them a model with the BOOOOOOOOST turned up.

[KillerB]

I feel like the narrowing weight difference between the three modern muscle cars is going to have the Challenger be much more competitive performance wise.

At this point you're looking at the Scat Pack 6.4L having a good 50 more hp than the GT and only about an extra 250 lbs to haul around.

[Kchrpm]

If the Camaro loses a few hundred pounds as is rumored, and gets something like the C7's LT1, that will open things back up.

[novicius]

Exactly. As long as Mark Stielow is in charge of Camaro, Challenger & Mustang will be battling for second place.

[KillerB]

I'll believe it when I see it. I want to see a lighter Camaro for sure, and the ATS specs make it promising, but until we know for sure, I'll stick with comparing what's out there to vaporware.

[novicius]

See it? You can see it now in the Z/28 -- there isn't any Mustang or Challenger that'll lap a road course as fast right now.

[KillerB]

Oh, you mean the $75,000 Camaro? Because performance comparisons between that track slut and the under $50,000 versions of these cars are SO relevant.

I'm talking Mustang GT vs. Camaro SS vs. Challenger Scat Pack. You know, the ones people actually buy. The Challenger has been at a price/performance disadvantage to the other two, due to being quite a bit heavier than the Mustang and only offering the 6.1L/6.4L in the most expensive loaded SRT variants. Now, the Mustang has gained a few hundred pounds and you can now get the 6.4L in a Challenger under $39,000. The Mustang will still be better value for money if you want the go-fast goodies and absolutely nothing else - though once comparably equipped, all three cars sticker within a few grand of each other.

[novicius]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't see a trim level restriction in this challenge.

[Kchrpm]

Unfortunately the Z28's accomplishments are not like the C6 ZR1's: whereas the aluminum frame for the ZR1 no doubt was a stepping stone on the way to the C7s, the Z28's upgrades over stock do not seem to be things that can trickle down.

[novicius]

I feel like the narrowing weight difference between the three modern muscle cars is going to have the Challenger be much more competitive performance wise.

If the Camaro loses a few hundred pounds as is rumored, and gets something like the C7's LT1, that will open things back up.

Between these two statements, I agree with Kch, that's all I'm saying. I am very pro-Hellcat but I would never claim that it's faster than the Z/28 or ZL1 anywhere except at stoplights or a dragstrip. #shrug