Are you ready for the endless shitposting when the 2018 gt500

>>15565143
i don't think they will go TTV8 for this
a supercharged V8 would make more sense
and it fits the Shelby mustang more

You can't turbo a voodoo.

File: 8ae4237f22f9cfc82ad058d4272ad030.jpg (176KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1280x720px

>>15565163
It's already been confirmed that Ford has been testing a TT v8 mule earlier this year

>The EcoBoost 5.0 V8 program has been under development for a several years, and first made it’s public appearance in the Cobra Jet program in late-2012. The underlying purpose of the EcoBoost V8 project was to power the next-gen GT500. The 5.2L FPC program contributed to delaying the 5.0 EcoBoost program, but this V8 Twin-Turbo program is now on track again, and will make it’s debut in the next GT500 and 2018 F-150 Raptor, and could possibly become a second-motor option for the 2017 model year Raptor”

>>15565143
Twin turbo on an aluminum block is a mess waiting to happen.
Also boosting a the voodoo would be stupid. High revolutions and throttle response are the hallmarks of the voodoo, and both of those will be gimped if they turbo it.

And like every other shelby in the latest generations, it will be supercharged, so you might as well delete the bait thread Alphonse.

>>15565221
Prepare to eat those words when it's revealed to have two turbos

File: 1406191308256726674.jpg (174KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x854px

>>15565143

Why would there be endless shitposting? it has a V8 and not a V6 and i'm interested in how it will function to be honest. The only thing i'm worried about is reliability of the engine and if it does have reliability issues then how can you shitpost with a car that's going to make a shitpost of itself?

>>15565178
i might be wrong
but aren't all shelby supercharged ?
maybe it's for a racing application

File: DSC_0006.jpg (1MB, 1936x1296px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x1296px

>>15565305
for the last few years it has been, but shelby was the architect behind the turbo dodges of the 80s

To be completely honest I'd really like to see a TT V6 Mustang with AWD and under 3800lbs. That's the next logical step. RWD simply isn't useable at the power level modern cars have.

It's the only thing that would cause me to ditch my Termi. I simply am not impressed by random huge HP numbers without the traction to back it up.

>>15565347
AWD sucks dude.

File: delicious.gif (2MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x202px

>>15565143
>Ecoboost v8
>Ford finally realizes the superiority of V8 engines.

File: DSC_0047.jpg (1MB, 1936x1296px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x1296px

>>15565358
>assmad gm fangirl detected
but this is true

>>15565360
In what way? It won't hold a candle to the ecoboost GT.

>>15565347
radical sr8, ultima GTR 720 and the viper ACR seem to do just fine with rwd

>>15565143
>endless shitposting
When it gets btfo by the V6 GT?

>>15565384
might need it
mustangs spend too much time crashing into crowds

>>15565221
What if they boost the coyote?

>>15565384
>Two pseudo prototype Le Mans cars and a two seat supercar with literally one of , if not the largest width tire on the market do fine.
Ford could put out a great AWD system at its price point.

>>15565358
>Making the car more practical and useable means it's bad.
No. Have you driven a 13/14 GT500? The car isn't even useable on the factory meats.

>>15565432
stick axle doesn't help pham

>>15565450
>>>/dbt/

File: disappointed-obama.jpg (32KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x300px

>>15565143
pigfat n slower than a z06 for the same money

next

>>15565152
Really annoys me how car manufacturers mount the engine so far in front of the front tires. Look at all that wasted weight distribution

Couldn't be any worse than the current shitposting.

File: DSC_2218.jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x2848px

>>15565475
>Implying I don't partake in ferd discussion

>>15565305
It was originally proposed for the Raptor, but I think they're just going to go full retard with the v6 EB

>>15565450

No, but the lack of rubber is a serious Mustang flaw. You can get way wider rubber on a Camaro. Z/28 has something retarded like 315's or so..

>twin turbo Exoboost V8 Mustang
>it's diesel

File: gt-f01-1.jpg (113KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 750x422px

>>15565347

That might jack up the price to the point where most people who can afford it will go buy a performance Audi unless they throw some half-assed AWD-train that makes the car handle worse to keep the cost down. i think all of the AWD trains Ford has are FWD-biased so they would have to design a new one entirely for the mustang which they most likely aren't going to do because of cost.

Would be nice if they used the Falcon as their AWD performance platform but they're killing the falcon and Ford doesn't seem very adventurous with their platforms. When was the last RWD Lincoln besides the town-car and navigator? the LS?

>>15565665
Fuck I wish I could get a Barra in the states.

>>15565665
The stang is already a cash cow for Ford so I honestly think they could keep the price point. It's going to need a major update anyway due to the alpha platform GM has now.

They could save a lot of money by shutting down 5.0 production altogether and share the V6 with the rest of the fleet.

I see it like this:
Rental Tier: FWD w/ 2.3L I4
GT: AWD w/ warmed over (tune only) 3.0L V6 shared with upcoming Lincoln Continental/Navigator
GT500: AWD w/ 3.5L V6 shared with raptor

I don't see the need for RWD outside of trucks which have already replaced the old school luxury barge market in the US.

File: gmc 702 hotrod.jpg (159KB, 960x645px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 960x645px

>>15565590
gt500 has 285 rear and 245 front. might have gotten wider at front.

ZL1 (the more direct competitor to the GT500) has 285 rear and like 255 front. still really wide, but it's suspension is a lot better and that's what made it a significantly more manageable car. that, and the extremely sophisticated traction control that premiered on the ZR1

>>15565731
>fwd
>awd
just make another car at that point

>I don't see the need for RWD
you are not the mustangs target audience

>>15565812
>you are not the mustangs target audience
Yet I've owned multiple examples and have one in my garage.
>just make another car at that point
Why? As long a it has "the look" the rental fleets and high school girls who buy the base convertible will be happy.

>>15565168
Why?

>>15565833
>Yet I've owned multiple examples and have one in my garage
mustang is RWD, has always been RWD. I doubt they'd go front wheel drive.

besides, if you wanted an awd sportscar get an audi or a subaru or something

and the mustang makes money right now. believe it or not, chad knows the value of RWD because it means you can do wicked burnouts. it is also better for drag racing.

>>15565812
Is that the GM firetruck v12 out back??

>>15565857
If you want a less capable Mustang due to tradition, why not buy one of the widely available less capable old ones from its 50 year history?

AWD is the future and it will be on Ford's radar when the next Mustang is due out.

>Burnout
>Drag Racing
Which you won't be doing in the base model anyway. It just has to look cool and be cheap for women.

File: ford f150.jpg (954KB, 2819x1878px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 2819x1878px

>>15565906
yes

>>15565854
Because a turbo IS VOODOO.

>>15565857
>mustang is RWD, has always been RWD. I doubt they'd go front wheel drive.
The Probe was supposed to be the Mustangs replacement. They at least heavily considered it in the '80s.

>>15565143
>yfw V8 > V6 again

Forced induction isn't the displacement replacement, it's the enhancement.

>>15566308
It can, and has been utilized as both replacement and supplement.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

File: 1424966850945.jpg (242KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1280x853px

>>15566308
Hi.

>>15566396
>replacing V8s since 2015
Nice

File: kys.jpg (67KB, 709x765px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 709x765px

>>15565152
>12+ second quarter mile

>>15566601
>Muh RWD
>Muh Burnouts
>Muh better for dra.....oh.

>>15566601
Look at that dyno, it's like a big turbo Supra. All the power up top and not as fast as a less powerful car with a flatter torque curve.

>>15565330
i didn't knew that
but back then it was really something not just Ford performance division

Ready for the next gen z28 to spank ford, holy shit it's gonna be so cash , even the zl1 is gonna spank the 350

>>15567050
>GM fangirls this desperate for a hero car
Inb4 GM publishes lap times without proof.

>>15567062
Considering that the gt350 barely laps a 10 year old chassis/engine z28 by like a second, I'm highly positive the next gen zl1 will spank it

>>15567069
>hopes and dreams
It's a cute suicide prevention technique for the fangirls.

>>15567076
It's only logical :) don't be mad anon

>>15567069
Considering the Z/28 had a bespoke suspension setup it's hard to say that the new ZL1 will handle any better.

>>15567069
>only 1 second
That's kinda messed up considering the gt350r has more horsepower that the z28 as well as being newer.
Any word on when the 6th gen z28 is out?
I don't follow GM much aside from the slayvette.

>>15565347
>AWD TT Mustang

Fuck you dude

Ford is free to make a V6TT AWD sports car that is Mustang priced, but don't ruin the heritage of the Mustang brand

>>15567088
We'll see, I'm just excited. I like chebby and ferd
>>15567089
No word on the z28 but come on... testing a brand new platform vs a 10 year old car is so lame. Like how c&d tested a chevy ss vs e39 m5. So dumb.

File: reee.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>>15565374
Sorry, i can see this is bait but I'm going to bite

How much does the GT cost? 400,000 fucking dollars....The body panels alone probably cost more to replace than the average annual US family income. The two aren't even in the same class. The GT500 will cost a less than 1/4 of GT at $80k.

Buy a GT500 blow $20k on modifications and i bet you could make the GT500 run circles around the GT on a track

>>15567153
>claims V8s are superior
>gets proven wrong
>proceeds to move goalposts
Thanks for your imput anon.

>>15567163
Shut the fuck up you fucking sperg

Not even that guy

>>15567169
The GT is objectively superior with a V6. Stay mad.

>b-but muh modifications
Are you just going to ignore the GT can be modified to?

>>15567175
It literally only has a v6 because emissions and rules , don't be callous

File: 1469488271947.jpg (27KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 604x604px

>>15567184
So you admit the V6 is superior? Great.

File: idiot.jpg (40KB, 477x372px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 477x372px

>>15567175
Holy shit....this nigga here has reached a whole new level of dumb ass.

Drop a small displacement twin-charged V8 in the GT and it would smoke the shit out of the V6 GT. But that would go against their current agenda

Ford is just pushing smaller displacement engines in their halo car to boost the image of smaller engines since the suits and bean counters in marketing/finance are getting bent over by the EPA. Nothing to do with performance

>>15567100
The "traditional" Mustang is a slow secretary's car. Real Mustang enthusiasts want to haul ass and know that an AWD is needed.

The car can't hook. You'd know that if you owned a Mustang.

>>15567190
btfo

File: Cersei-Lannister-cersei-lannister-34373551-245-300.gif (2MB, 245x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x300px

>>15567222
>resorting to theoretical situations because the real world hurts your feelings
V8 cucks have hit a new low

>>15567226
Mine hooks just fine
Get you're gm ass blasted fanny out of here
tfw you got btfo lol

>>15567222
[citation needed]
>V8 neanderthals this deluded
The GT dominated many small displacement turbo V8s in its successful LeMans campaign.

>>15567248
>GM ass blasted fanny
>I'm the guy with the 03 Cobra
KEK

If your stang hooks it must be a basic bitch model or is cruising on impractical DR's.

File: EPA.jpg (15KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 640x360px

>>15567243
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/03/epa-director-says-2025-fuel-economy-standards-are-reachable/

All theoretical right? The government is pushing to get cars to 54 mpg by 2025. Its not feasible to get V8s to that and its cheaper to make shitty four and six cylinders.

>>15565143
Will the Mustang finally dethrone the corvette?

>>15567298
Not if Trump wins, he'll likely put at end to this nonsense.

File: L.png (182KB, 526x558px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 526x558px

>>15567300
Hold this

>>15567298
>The government is pushing to get cars to 54 mpg by 2025

>ability to make cars so lightweight that they can actually do this
>saftey regs require cars to be pigfat to prevent the tiniest scratch in the case of a crash
They ask the impossible.

File: 1466830382755.jpg (84KB, 719x705px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 719x705px

>>15567298
>claims a V8 GT would beat would beat a V6 GT around a track
>literally no evidence to back his claim
>moves goalposts AGAIN after getting BTFO
Still waiting on the proof a V8 GT would be faster.

>>15567313
Damn that's close.

>>15566396
Needs an EcoBoost® V8.

>Ford™, Go Further

>>15567313
Isn't there a GT500? Compare those

>>15567326
Uh.. isn't that just common sense? On the same build quality, the v8 preforms better because it's able to output more power and torque than a v6. If we're talking about the same exact build quality, then the v8 would outright preform better.

That's literally just common sense.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (122KB, 1628x916px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1628x916px

>>15567338
>power is the only factor
There's also weight and other factors. You're talking out of your ass, stay mad.

>>15567300
Even if it did most Americans would still buy a corvette over a cobra/mustang. Owning a corvette is like part of the American dream.

>>15567346
Uhh

File: 1464845506821.jpg (632KB, 786x1024px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 786x1024px

>>15567336
The GT500 isn't the fastest track variant stang, the 350r is, but If you want me to look I will
I'll probably come back with some slower than a clobalt typa shit tho

>>15567346
t. boomer

>>15567350
>>15567359
Outside of /o/ your average American would take a vet over a cobra.

>>15567355
It's not? So it's a worse hp/weight then ir what?

>clobalt
Compare the SS and GT500. I'm curious.

>>15567371
So would I but it's hardly a dream vehicle anymore. Most Americans could care less about any car desu.

>>15567371
Maybe a boomer yea. Even then maybe not. My boomer dad doesn't like Corvettes at all. He'd rather ride his bike.

File: 4 doors more whores.png (201KB, 534x590px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 534x590px

>>15567386
Different suspension
The 350r is a z28 rival.
It's the only mustang that can turn

>>15567401
>2012 GT500
>540 HP
Nice subtle shitpost.

>>15567401
>different suspension
But why? Is the GT500 just for drag racing then?

File: shitpost.jpg (107KB, 462x348px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 462x348px

>>15567326
I don't follow racing or any of that shit because its all hyper cars with performance that doesn't translate into the real world. I don't know if there is a race car in whatever series you watch that has V8 that is both supercharged and turbo charged. Its a hypothetical.

All i know is that the ecoboost mustang has been btfo'd hard by the camaro with a N/A V6, the turbo six M4/M3 duo has been BFTO'd hard by the camaro with a N/A V8, and the Viper with its N/A V10 has BTFO'd almost every car in the same class. Sure, maybe the GT wins more on a track but in almost every real world example your "replacement for displacement" meme fails

Its hilarious how hard you are projecting your cuckold fetish right now. Get out of your moms basement and get a job so you can actually buy a car that isn't a 4 cylinder shit box

File: 1459396318859.png (464KB, 1018x568px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1018x568px

>>15567455
>ecoboost mustang loses to V6 camaro
The ecoboost starts at 25k, the 1SS V6 starts at 32k. Obviously it's faster.
>turbo 6 M3/M4 have been btfo by N/A camaro
Nope. pic related

>Viper with its N/A V10 has BTFO almost every car in the same class
Sure, until the GT hits the track.


>this mad V8s can't compete
Stay mad.

>>15567417
Gt500 is for going insanely fast in a straight line while kicking up huge amounts of tire smoke

The gt350 is track focused


Same deal with the Camaro z/28 and zl1

>>15567338
>>15567298
The GT dominated many small displacement turbo V8s in its successful LeMans campaign.
>>15567326
>literally no evidence to back his claim
>moves goalposts AGAIN after getting BTFO
How will he recover?

>>15567567
Zl1 handles pretty well though, it was universally lauded for that.

Copo camaro is the drag strip hero

>>15567455
>yfw GM fangirls actually think slower=faster
No wonder they're so deluded. They are actually intellectually disabled.

>>15567494
>m2/m4
z28 is faster
>ford gt
not out yet
>this perpetually mad at superior v8 engines
Lol why are you even here?

>>15565143
Why are they covering the frontal area? It's gonna be the same as the GT350.

>>15567567
That makes sense now.

I'm still trying to understand certain brands models' purposes. I'm just used to stomping the gas pedal in my I4 econobox and pretending I'm hitting warp speed so researching high end cars is a bit foreign to me.

>>15567600
>tits or gtfo

>>15567596
>Z/28 is faster
Not against the M4 GTS
>fangirls cherrypicking competitors to suit
I almost feel sorry for them.

>>15567600
>That camouflage hides a new front end optimized to feed air to the GT500’s distinguishing feature, a twin-turbocharged V-8. Clues that this is no ordinary Mustang are sprinkled all over the front end. Check out the zippered panels above the grille, across the leading edge of the hood. It’s clear that the section can be removed, which is typically the case when cooling vents hide beneath manufacturer camouflage. Neither the Mustang GT nor the GT350 have openings there (the GT350 has an extractor vent farther up the hood, but it faces backward), and the lower fascia appears to be unique. Look closely: The diagonal spars separating the lower air inlet from the outboard brake-cooling ducts tilt outward, while the same pieces on the GT350 face the opposite direction. These give the lower intake an upside-down corral shape that mirrors the right-side-up corral shape of the iconic Mustang grille. Students of history will note that the outgoing Shelby GT500’s face featured the same flourish. And is that an intercooler we see down there?

>>15565143

>another overpriced v8 in a tin can that can't reliably even go straight

American """""sports""""" cars are the macbooks of /o/

File: 2016-08-04 (1).png (595KB, 1326x879px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1326x879px

>>15567494
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

A bare bones ecoboost mustang with the PP costs $28,540. You can buy the new camaro in base trim with the V6 for $28,190. So its actually cheaper AND faster. No such thing as 1SS V6. 1SS and 2SS trim only come with the 6.2 L V8.

Your picture there shows conflicting stats. Camaro is faster than M4 and I'll just use your logic to say the Camaro is cheaper than the M2 so of course its faster.

Got more shit to spout or you done?

>>15567619
Except MacBook are super expensive for what you get
American cars are generally pretty good value for the amount of power you get

>>15567626
>Camaro is faster than M4
Except it isn't.

>>15565143
I think they should make a two tier system, with the GT350 being nothing but supercharged manual V8s, and the GT500 being whatever engineers find to be the fastest, be it a turbo V6 with flappy paddles or whatever. Seems like a good compromise when there's two reusable titles like that.

File: 1177639298080.jpg (148KB, 600x1800px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 600x1800px

>>15567626
>bare bones ecoboost mustang with the PP
>bare bones ecoboost
>with the PP

>>15567640
It's already like that
But the other way round
The gt500 is all big v8 power
Gt350 is about going as fast as possible around a track

>>15567647
Well there you go, I didn't even think Ford was making a GT500 this model year, thought they were just sticking with the 350 or that they had some title dispute with Shelby American.

>>15567630


>50 grand for car that can't turn

>pretty good value

Not counting the cost of a new engine at 75,000 miles because american quality control is shit.

>>15565152
How on earth is this considered a good car? A 20 year old ninja 250 has a better quarter mile than that. God, what a pile of shit. Do people actually feel fast when they drive these?

>>15567619
>Over priced
You realize this thing is going to be priced around 65-70k dollars and have more than 700+ hp(Ford engineers said it will beat the hellcat in power)
That's pretty damn good value

>>15567654
Ford and Shelby are both united in maintaining their status as GM's ultimate nightmare.

>>15567611
>$200k GTS
Even an old c6 is faster than that heap of shit
git gud

>>15567656
bike can't turn tho
but I guess neither can mustangs

>>15567600
The Focus ST and Focus RS has a very different front fascia from each other and the normal Focus. So relating it, we can expect a number of changes up in the front due to various factors.

>>15567656
>A 20 year old ninja 250 has a better quarter mile than that.

Not everyone lives their life a quarter mile at a time, Vin.

File: stang.png (218KB, 1920x933px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1920x933px

>>15567646
>loses argument and proceeds to try to meme himself out of the shit hole he dug

Bare bones in the sense that it has no options besides the PP. Every performance road test of the ecoboost mustang had the PP.

>>15567702
Different anon, faggot.

It's not bare bones if you're adding packages to it.

>>15567695

I just don't see the point in such an expensive car being so slow. There are production bikes that will hit 110 mph in first gear in 3 seconds and sell for a 5th of the price. How is a car that takes 12 seconds, costs 70k, and looks like shit supposed to be enjoyable knowing that?

>>15567657

>You realize this thing is going to be priced around 65-70k dollars

That's a nice ass house where I live. Only an idiot would shell out that kind of money for a car that just barely goes straight and god help you if you turn.

>>15567406

That's correct though. Trinity happened in '13.

>>15567681
>but it's cheap! I have a cheap car!
You sure showed him....

File: 1133245709433.jpg (32KB, 352x240px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 352x240px

>>15567721
>That's a nice ass house where I live.

Where? The fucking trailer park?

>>15567730
>this butthurt the GTS is slower and costs more

omglol

>>15567721
>That's nice house
What the fuck
Where do you live

>>15567739
>slower
[citation needed]
>costs more
"But mah cheap car!"
By all means, keep shitposting in a rational discussion. You're only embarrassing yourself.

>>15567709
holy fucking shit...

Its one damn package that every test done with the ecoboost mustang had with it when tested. I am just trying to keep it competitive with the camaro V6, without it i have no stats to use for the mustang.

Ford positioned the ecoboost to compete with the Camaro V6, hence why its more expensive than the V6 version of the mustang.

>>15567766
It's still not bare bones if you're adding in packages, bro. It doesn't matter who tested with what, it doesn't make it bare bones. Why are you not fucking understanding this?

>>15567732

Across the street from one actually. Oddly that's where most of the Mustangs and Camaros in town reside. They're on wellfare, they live in tattered 30 year old 14'x90' trailers, their kids are dressed in rags but somehow they can afford a $50k Mustang.

>>15567765
>can't read

>>15567775
Not him but why are you sperging out?
He was just using that phrase to emphasizethat it has no options other than the PP
It's entirely reasonable to use the term bare bones in that case
Chill the fuck out autist

>>15567702

>sport pedals for manual transmission
>$130

What the fuck is this? The Apple store?

>>15567792
Nice projection.
Given you failed to provide a citation, it's reasonable to think you either can't read, don't have evidence, or both.

>>15567799
Because it's not a comparable price comparison if you're tossing packages onto one car and not the other. Throw on the larger wheels, 6 piston Brembos, suspension upgrades, Torsen diff and the higher gear ratio and tell me how much that Camaro costs.

>>15567808
Welcome to the world of dealer optional extras
Everything is stupidly over priced

>>15567820
>mad

>>15565143

There are cheaper ways to make you feel better about your small penis.

>>15567829

The act of buying a brand new car is retarded by itself.

>>15567832
>no evidence
Until you show us all some evidence, I will no longer reply to you.

>>15567824
What?
It is a comparable comparison if they are similarly priced

He's saying you can get the Ecobooststang with the pp
For roughly the same price as the base v6 Camaro
And the Ecoboost is faster
How is that not fair?

>>15567856
He said the Camaro is cheaper and faster.

>>15567626
>A bare bones ecoboost mustang with the PP costs $28,540. You can buy the new camaro in base trim with the V6 for $28,190. So its actually cheaper AND faster.

>>15567856
>>15567799
>>15567702
>>15567646

What the fuck is PP?

>>15567877
Wew
My reading comprehension is going down the drain

Still
It's a fair comparison

>>15565143
>Endless shitposting
>implying it hasn't started yet

>>15567878
Performance Package, which is just larger wheels and tires, 4 piston "Brembos", larger rear sway bar, 3.55 LSD, larger radiator, and stiffer front springs.

>>15567878
Performance package?

>>15565488
Fuck you and your inset motor designs, you can take that shit back with you to fucking europe. Have you ever worked on an inset engine? its a pain in the fucking ass, things that take minutes on a non-inset engine take fucking hours to do on an inset engine.

HURR DURR I NEED EVERY SINGLE POUND THAT I CAN DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY SO I CAN FINALLY BRAG TO MY HOMEBOYS THAT I HAVE A 100% 50/50 RATIO ACROSS ALL 4 TIRES HURFDURF.

>>15567877
>28k
You don't get them that cheap ever.

>>15567953
You might have a point if you're talking about a high mileage taxi or pickup truck. We're talking about performance cars.

>>15567991

>mustangs
>performance cars

Performance of smashing into shit while attempting to show off maybe

>>15567991
Different between an inset engine race ready car and non-inset engine is this:

>Oh shit blew a head gasket, better change it and hit the next lap
>Oh shit blew a head gasket, were done here seeya guys next season.

>>15568131
You might have a point. If blown headgaskets were a regular occurrence at the track. And that your track didn't have any turns.

>>15565152
it shifts 3 gears before i get out of first in my 2008 zx14

>>15568001
>it's the car's fault

i bet you think guns kill people too

Also, the upcoming ZL1 will have it's pricing and performance figures released in a few days.

>>15565143
it will be available in rhd?

>>15569813
Probably not, Ford doesn't really release limited-edition Mustangs outside of the States as far as I know...

Maybe Canada?

File: 2016-07-29.png (82KB, 824x776px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 824x776px

>>15567824
The camaro with the V6 and nothing else still performs better than the ecoboost mustang w/ Performance Package. Even the 2.0T camaro is faster than the ecoboost and that is with shit tires.

It is comparable because Ford positioned the ecoboost Mustang to perform directly against the V6 Camaro.

V6 Mustang vs. 2.0t Camaro
Ecoboost Mustang vs. V6 Camaro
Mustang GT vs. Camaro SS
Mustang GT350 vs. Camaro Z/28
Mustang GT500 vs. Camaro ZL1

That is how GM and Ford have set up their pony cars to compete against each other. I think it was a giant mistake for Ford to make the 2.3 L I4 mustang a notch above the V6 as it has lost to both the 2.0T and V6 versions of the Camaro

>>15570525
The 2.0 camaro isn't faster than the ecoboost around a track. Oh and nice job comparing a Mustang premium to a BASE V6. It starts at 25k dumbass without packages.

>>15567184
It's a v6 because the aero wouldn't work with the additional engine length of 2 more cylinders.

Also, if they can make all of the necessary power with a v6, there's no reason for 2 extra cylinders.

>>15570577
And your point?

A base mustang GT starts at $32,645 while a Camaro SS starts at $37,900 which is a pretty big price difference yet they are constantly go up against each other in comparison tests. Using your logic, the Mustang GT would go up against the V6 camaro.

I compared a base mustang ecoboost w/ Performance Package against a base camaro w/ V6. No idea what you are talking about.

>>15570667
Yes, exactly. It would. Because it's cheaper. That's why the Mustang sells 14,000 models a month and the camaro sells 6000.

>>15570688
And that's why the Camaro sells more models than the BMW M4. And the Toyota corolla sells more than all 3 combined. Sales mean nothing

We are talking about performance here, not sales or price.

>>15570688
And the mustang has been in constant production since the mid 60s and Chevrolet couldn't figure out how to sell a ~30mpg hw secretary car.

>>15570718
Tell me about the performance of the 2007 Camaro.

>>15570718
>Sales mean nothing
Must be why they've never stopped making camaros before.

File: image.jpg (734KB, 1080x811px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1080x811px

>V8 IS BEST
>NUH UH V6TT IS BEAT
>NO V8 IS BETTER
>ECOBOOST ECOBOOST ECOBOOST

When will you displacelets ever learn?

File: 123.jpg (29KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x240px

>>15570723
>loses argument
>proceeds to move goal posts

Ah so now the MR2, Supra, Viper, and S2000 are all bad cars because they stopped making them?

>>15570846
Lose what argument? Just because I replied to you when you were wrong doesn't mean that I was there the first time someone disagreed with you.

Chevrolet is good at building engines and basically nothing else. They really should leave the hard stuff like building cars that aren't shitty self defeating death traps to someone else.

>>15570846
>loses argument
Nobody lost the argument. The ecoboost mustang is better than the 2.0. And the camaro is ridiculously expensive in its class.

>>15566294
And we know how well the probe did.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-05-14-32-21.png (445KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1440x2560px

>>15570525
Pretty sure that the v6 Mustang and ecoboost are both faster than the turbo 4 cylinder Camaro.

Also good job, Chevys v6 is finally able to hold its

>>15571611
It's own against older models v6 Mustangs. *

will all this ecoboosting lead to cheap turbos in the next couple years?

>>15571079
How is the ecoboost better than the 2.0 Camaro?

The camaro has a 35 hp and 25 lb-ft deficit and bad tires yet still destroys it in the straights, 5.2 vs 6.3 seconds to 60 mph. It is less than a second slower on the track (0.86 sec) than the mustang that has all the performance goodies from the mustang GT.

Motor Trend spent $1500 on better tires and the performance gains were huge.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/1500-speed-secret-three-adds-much/

"the Camaro RS with stock tires lapped the Streets course in 1:28.18, or 0.86 second behind the Mustang EcoBoost. Summer tires on the Camaro resulted in a 1.57-second lead"

But none of this matters since the Ecoboost is meant to compete against the V6 camaro not the 2.0t version. Its barely faster on the track than the 2.0T and gets smoked by the V6.

>>15571678
>destroys it in the straights
Hardly. The Mustang does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds.

>literally admits the ecoboost is faster the 2.0 around a track
good

File: ford btfo.jpg (431KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1024x683px

>>15571611

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2016/comparison-2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-vs-2016-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

Camaro 2.0T hit 60 mph in 5.2 while mustang ecoboost hit 60 mph in 6.3.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-v-6-test-review

V6 mustang 5.5 seconds to 60 mph

Both were slower compared to the turbo 4 camaro

>>15571714
>5.6 seconds
https://youtu.be/niNQxUvKNmk

>still slower around a track
I'm glad we've resolved the ecoboost is better

File: 5529.jpg (50KB, 385x342px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 385x342px

>>15571714
>the camaro 2.0 hit 0-60 in 5.2
No, it fucking didn't you lying piece of fucking shit. You're posting the V6 camaro.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-05-14-27-45.png (400KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1440x2560px

>>15571714
That shit is weird.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-v-6-first-test-review/

The camaro v6 RS is having slower times than the 2.0 turbo RS.

Also older gen v6 still faster though.

>Tfw no more live rear axle

>>15571733
Yeah, I think the guys at motortrend made a mistake, in their RS v6 review it even got slower times than the supposedly 2.0 turbo RS.
>>15571741

File: index.jpg (10KB, 244x207px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 244x207px

>>15571733
read the link fur fag.

>can't even admit the ecoboost is shit

>>15571827
It's faster around a track compared to the 2.0, moron.

>>15566601
it's a track car.

>>15571836
In your previous post, you stated that the 2.0T camaro didn't hit 60 in 5.2 seconds. Yet i posted the article source that shows it does in fact hit 60 in 5.2 seconds compared to the ecoshit's 6.3.

I already said the mustang is faster by 0.86 seconds.

>>15572369
It does 60 in 5.6. See >>15571722.

>i already said it's faster
Good.

>>15572387
so its still slower than the 2.0t and 3.6 V6 Camaro.

You just proved my point

>>15572442
>so it's slower than the 2.0T
Not around a track, congrats on admitting it's faster.

>>15572442
>playing mental gymnastics
fangirls everyone.

>>15571714
using motortrend when in regards to chevy.

Please dont be this fucking retarded GM practically owns MT.

fresh fruit juice

>>15572442
Congrats, the ecoboost is faster by 0.86 of a second against the base model engine camaro on the track, the most useless statistic. It still loses to the V6 camaro which it directly competes against.

File: 26.png (215KB, 1080x981px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1080x981px

>>15572741
>ecoboost price
>25k
>2.0 T price
>25k
Get fucked.

>b-but it loses to the V6
The V6 costs 32k brand new for the base manual option.

>>15572755
*base automatic
That's the camaro you keep comparing the Mustang to.

>>15566601
is that on street tires or slicks??

File: 2016-08-05.png (602KB, 1324x931px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1324x931px

>>15572755
This is the way GM and Ford have set up their camaro and mustang line ups. The price points of each confirm this.

V6 Mustang vs. 2.0t Camaro
Ecoboost Mustang vs. V6 Camaro
Mustang GT vs. Camaro SS
Mustang GT350 vs. Camaro Z/28
Mustang GT500 vs. Camaro ZL1

>b-b-but it costs less so that means its not comparable

The ecoboost puts out similar power levels to the V6 camaro because that's what Ford aimed it at. Why does the V6 mustang have almost no available options or option for the Performance package? Because its the base model you fuck

>>15572792
>muh website
Yea, and the website of Ford says you can get a GT350 for 49k. Bullshit.

>it costs less so it's not comparable
Yes, exactly. That's why Ford sells mustangs at OVER a 2:1 ratio. Muscle cars are made for people suffering a midlife crisis. Nobody wants to pay more for a camaro when you get similar everyday performance for less.

There's a THIRD Shelby....

Bill cosby had one...

>>15567719
Are you retarded? Do you know how much more technology, engineering, and money goes into cars than bikes?

File: 1446858875787.jpg (244KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1920x1200px

>>15573063
>Do you know how much more technology, engineering, and money goes into cars than bikes?
And they're still slower.

>>15573080
They're not faster tham F1 cars around tracks

File: 1446863485458.jpg (73KB, 736x596px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x596px

>>15573085
>implying you drive an F1
kek
Meanwhile, in the real world, I'll stay faster than you.

>>15573092
>no! It doesn't count!
BTFO

File: 1446859188038.jpg (182KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1920x1200px

>>15573097
>BTFO
That's you in your shitbox. I'll concede if I ever face off with Jensen Button in the touge, I'll more than likely get BTFO.

File: iDFCKuY.png (222KB, 439x781px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 439x781px

>>15565152

Where were you when Ford made a truer successor to the Toyota Supra than fucking Toyota?

WOW, WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!

>>15565152
That car isn't made by Ford. It's obvious why it's shit.

>>15573080

And I don't have to worry about some shit licker in a Honda swerving in front of me at 60 on the wayway and clipping my tire sending me to the ER where I have to be taught how to use a fucking spoon again.

>>15573124

Dyno queens all around!

File: 2016.png (360KB, 1687x914px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1687x914px

>>15572819
>muh worthless stupid opinion compared to facts

Pic related as fuck. 3 more pages of brand new V6 camaros for less than $30k within 100 miles of me.

>moving goal posts once again

The camaro and challenger have always lagged behind the mustang sales-wise. That doesn't mean either are bad cars. People also buy whatever is cheaper, not what is the better car. The mustang is cheaper because it has less performance equipment standard compared to the camaro. People don't realize that yet buy the mustang anyways

>>15573227
And you can get an ecoboost mustang for far less. What's your point?

File: reeeeeeeeeeeeee.jpg (80KB, 540x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 540x568px

>>15571850
>track car
>mustang

>>15573484
An ecoboost mustang with the performance package which every performance test with the ecoboost mustang in was equipped with costs the $350 more than a V6 1lt camaro.

If you want a car that will now not only be extremely slower than the base 2.0t camaro around the track but brake worse, handle worse, and ride worse go buy an ecoboost without the performance package.

Have fun with that m8

>>15574244
>costs more
It doesn't though. Nice try.

>>15574249
whatever man, camaro is still the better car

the mustang ecoboost and GT have lost to the Camaro in every performance comparison test. The GT350 will also lose to the upcoming Z/28 camaro. Go jack off to your sales figures

>>15574300
>literally gets proven wrong
>whatever man

>the mustang has lost to the camaro in every performance test
Nope, it's faster than the 2.0 around a track.

>GT350 will lose to the upcoming camaro
>no lap times
lol

>ford doesn't even have the engineering prowess to put the turbos inside the V of the engine like Mercedes and BMW and Audi

i guess they call it ecoboost because it's less effective

File: V8s BTFO 1.jpg (263KB, 1068x1298px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1068x1298px

>>15574312
It does the job well actually

>>15574317

if you take a friend to the track, have them hop out to film your lap, and then drive back, they would have to hold your helmet the entire way back because there is no cargo area in the radical. at least the corvette has a trunk

>>15574249

I just went to their websites and used their configurator. The Mustang ecoboost with no other options except the performance package comes in at 28,500.

The camaro comes in with no options but the V6 at 27,800

>>15574336
>damage control: the post

>>15574338
>muh website
The Car and Driver tests proves the ecoboost is cheaper.

>>15574340

>>15574317

>babby's first troll: the post

i will say it's funny how you guys quote all these lap times and have no idea who actually sets them

File: Ck3DFgjXEAIAUu4.jpg (22KB, 250x375px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x375px

>>15574346

>>15574338

Don't buy an ecoboost mustang. The engines are built in Spain, which is one of the worst countries for any sort of manufacturing.

>>15568214
Well, it's much easier to kill thirty people with a gun than it is with a sword. Even if you manage to jack a truck to murder people with you literally have to wait for the perfect opportunity.

Much like how a mustang shines on wide tracks and straight roads, but if you'd put it onto a touge it wouldn't make you proud of the money you wasted on it.

I want a 4 door Large Sedan with the Voodoo

Imagine an aluminum SVT CrownVic

>>15574632
Ecoboost is better

>>15573120
You'd get absolutely BTFO'd by an Elise around a track

>>15574312
Their 6.7L Powerstroke diesel engines use that tech actually. It's pretty painful to service so I'm glad they keep it traditional on their economy motors.

>ford will never ditch the wings and shit on the gt500
>they'll never drop in a big block voodoo
>they'll never do a non-ricer winged mach1 that has the gt350/500 engines without the fancy extras to compete with the scatpack segment
Ford sucks dick.