Yeah Baby eat that Camaro up!

[03cobrarocks]

Good kill and story!

Most the camaro people I run into think their car is damn near untouchable with bolt ons, and when they have cam and heads they beleive God himself couldnt beat them.

 

[Hissssss]

Great kill Fast OG, man I have been waiting to catch one of these, I would have loved to see the look on that guys face, totally crushed...:lol1:

He was probably thinking

Mother of God why did i buy this....

+2..:lol: couldn't have said it better myself

^ ...LIKE MOVIE DIRTY HAROLD..make my day

:??: thats HARRY man....:bored:

Well, considering you have almost 400 more rwhp I wouldn't expect anything different! Kinda like clubbing baby seals. They don't have a chance.

Isn't that the point...lol

 

[16kOrBust]

LOL at all of the people talking trash about a stock 425fwhp car because it lost to a highly modified 700+rwhp car. I'm no big fan of them at all, but that would be like me wreckin a new stock Mustang GT on my bike and then a bunch of people talking about how slow the GT is. A 2010 Camaro still traps 111; not the fastest thing out there, but that's not slow for a bone stock car, especially considering the 2010 Mustang GT for about the same price traps 102. source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/comparisons/4309423

Anyways, continue on with the bashing because it's fun to read anyways. :lol1:

 

[FastOldGuy52]

LOL at all of the people talking trash about a stock 425fwhp car because it lost to a highly modified 700+rwhp car. I'm no big fan of them at all, but that would be like me wreckin a new stock Mustang GT on my bike and then a bunch of people talking about how slow the GT is. A 2010 Camaro still traps 111; not the fastest thing out there, but that's not slow for a bone stock car, especially considering the 2010 Mustang GT for about the same price traps 102. source: 2010 Camaro SS vs 2010 Ford Mustang GT vs 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T Comparison Test Drive: Muscle Car Competition - Popularmechanics.com

Anyways, continue on with the bashing because it's fun to read anyways. :lol1:

1. He would have lost to a stock GT 500 he should have never tried it.

2. Just wait a couple of months the 2011 Mustang GT will kill them also.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMktli1m0og"]YouTube- Comparison: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 vs 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs Dodge Challenger SRT8![/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHqbqGCCMc&feature=related"]YouTube- 2011 Mustang 5.0L vs Camaro 6.2L Drag Races[/nomedia]

 

[16kOrBust]

1. He would have lost to a stock GT 500 he should have never tried it.

2. Just wait a couple of months the 2011 Mustang GT will kill them also.

YouTube- Comparison: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 vs 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs Dodge Challenger SRT8!

YouTube- 2011 Mustang 5.0L vs Camaro 6.2L Drag Races

Wait a minute, so after all the hype about this new 2011 Mustang GT and its motor, it weighs significantly less than the new Camaro SS and only traps 1/2 mph faster? :dw: Considering that, I'm failing to see how the new Camaro sucks balls so bad and yet the new 2011 GT is God's gift to the world. :bored:

And 1/2 mph faster and less than 1/2 a second ET isn't exactly "killing" them. Let's be realistic here about our choice of words. And again, I'm not a fan of the new Camaros, so I really don't care one way or the other. Just trying to keep it realistic. One car goes bottom 13s at 110.8 weighing 200 pounds more with 426 flywheel horsepower and it's a piece of shit, then another one goes high 12s at 111.3 weighing 200 pounds less with 412 horsepower and it's the most badass machine in forever. And then another higher model car that costs $15,000 more and rated at 500 horsepower can beat the piece of shit, and it supposedly drives the point home for everyone? Are you guys serious?

I'm not saying the guy wasn't destined for disappointment by trying run a much faster car, but saying that's proof that the slower car is a piece of junk is really ignorant.

 

[lowflyn]

Been trying to find one here as well...

And I don't think anyone's trying to call them junk...it just simply picked the wrong car to mess with. I'm also ready for my first 2011 GT encounter...hurt more feelings.

 

[FastOldGuy52]

Wait a minute, so after all the hype about this new 2011 Mustang GT and its motor, it weighs significantly less than the new Camaro SS and only traps 1/2 mph faster? :dw: Considering that, I'm failing to see how the new Camaro sucks balls so bad and yet the new 2011 GT is God's gift to the world. :bored:

Hmm did you not watch the video? Also you "forgot" to mention that it has a little less hp and 1.2 liter less engine, but oh well. :bored:

And 1/2 mph faster and less than 1/2 a second ET isn't exactly "killing" them. Let's be realistic here about our choice of words.

In drag racing a 1/2 of second is A LOT. BTW isn't that about how much faster the 2010 Camaro is than the 2010 Mustang GT?

And again, I'm not a fan of the new Camaros, so I really don't care one way or the other. Just trying to keep it realistic. One car goes bottom 13s at 110.8 weighing 200 pounds more with 426 flywheel horsepower and it's a piece of shit, then another one goes high 12s at 111.3 weighing 200 pounds less with 412 horsepower and it's the most badass machine in forever.

Yeah the Camaro weighs 5% more and has a 20% larger engine and stops worse, corners worse and is significantly slower 0-60 and in the quarter . Yep the 2011s Mustangs will be killing the Camaros. Plus have you honestly looked at both interiors? The Camaro's interior is pretty week.

And then another higher model car that costs $15,000 more and rated at 500 horsepower can beat the piece of shit, and it supposedly drives the point home for everyone? Are you guys serious? I'm not saying the guy wasn't destined for disappointment by trying run a much faster car, but saying that's proof that the slower car is a piece of junk is really ignorant.

For the record...Actually I kind of like the new Camaro but they made it to heavy [Challenger too] but then again they made the Shelby to heavy also. They are shaving 120lbs off the Shelby this year though. And yes its going to be open season on the Camaros when the 5.0 Mustangs hit the road a half of second is forever in drag racing.:rockon:

 

[16kOrBust]

Hmm did you not watch the video? Also you "forgot" to mention that it has a little less hp and 1.2 liter less engine, but oh well. :bored:



In drag racing a 1/2 of second is A LOT. BTW isn't that about how much faster the 2010 Camaro is than the 2010 Mustang GT?




Yeah the Camaro weighs 5% more and has a 20% larger engine and stops worse, corners worse and is significantly slower 0-60 and in the quarter . Yep the 2011s Mustangs will be killing the Camaros. Plus have you honestly looked at both interiors? The Camaro's interior is pretty week.



For the record...Actually I kind of like the new Camaro but they made it to heavy [Challenger too] but then again they made the Shelby to heavy also. They are shaving 120lbs off the Shelby this year though. And yes its going to be open season on the Camaros when the 5.0 Mustangs hit the road a half of second is forever in drag racing.:rockon:

I'm well aware that 1/2 a second is a lot in drag racing, which is why I specifically pointed out that it was LESS than half a second. I also SPECIFICALLY stated the horsepower of both cars. I didn't forget anything, you just didn't read the whole post obviously.

Maybe we just have different defitions of the word, but if I raced someone from a stop in the 1/4 and didn't put at least five cars on them, plus I wasn't really pullin at all up top once we got moving, I wouldn't say I "killed" them. I've been in many, many races at the track and on the street and to me killing is really a LOT of cars, not a few. Beat them? Yes. Killed them? No. It obviously gets out of the hole quicker, which sucks balls for the Camaro, but once they get moving, there's not really a difference based on those numbers you posted in that video (1/2 mph is NOT a big difference in drag racing, hell that could easily be chalked up to driver error or a temperature change between running one car at 8am and another at 10am).

And I don't know about you, but I don't know a single person that's going to be out there talking about how they just wrecked a new Camaro with their new Mustang in braking on the street...

Anyways, I'm done defending a car that I don't really care for that much anyways. The bottom line is it's overweight, as with many of the new "muscle" cars, and that keeps it from getting off the line like it should and doing those hp ratings justice. I'm just glad Ford stepped up their game with the GT and made an attempt to keep it from gaining too much weight. It's about damn time and I'm sure we can both agree on that! :banana:


By the way, have you ever had your GT500 at the track? I bet that thing hauls some serious ass.

 

[FastOldGuy52]

I'm well aware that 1/2 a second is a lot in drag racing, which is why I specifically pointed out that it was LESS than half a second. I also SPECIFICALLY stated the horsepower of both cars. I didn't forget anything, you just didn't read the whole post obviously.

Maybe we just have different defitions of the word, but if I raced someone from a stop in the 1/4 and didn't put at least five cars on them, plus I wasn't really pullin at all up top once we got moving, I wouldn't say I "killed" them. I've been in many, many races at the track and on the street and to me killing is really a LOT of cars, not a few. Beat them? Yes. Killed them? No. It obviously gets out of the hole quicker, which sucks balls for the Camaro, but once they get moving, there's not really a difference (1/2 mph is NOT a big difference in drag racing, hell that could easily be chalked up to driver error or a temperature change between running one car at 8am and another at 10am).

And I don't know about you, but I don't know a single person that's going to be out there talking about how they just wrecked a new Camaro with their new Mustang in braking on the street...

Anyways, I'm done defending a car that I don't really care for that much anyways. The bottom line is it's overweight, as with many of the new "muscle" cars, and that keeps it from getting off the line like it should and doing those hp ratings justice. I'm just glad Ford stepped up their game with the GT and made an attempt to keep it from gaining too much weight. It's about damn time and I'm sure we can both agree on that! :banana:


By the way, have you ever had your GT500 at the track? I bet that thing hauls some serious ass.

Oh I read your whole post alright I also noticed you "forgot" to mention the Camaro has 420 FTQ to the Mustang's 390 FTQ. The extra 30 FTQ should have helped it get out of the hole better.

If I got beat by 0.4 sec [about 65 feet at 110.8 mph] in a 1/4 mile drag race I would consider it getting killed. As I said I kind of like the Camaro SS but in 2011 at least Mustang has got them beat. It will be interesting to see what GM does in 2012.

I haven't had the Shelby at the track yet. I need to install my 2.875 upper pulley and 10% overdrive lower pulley before going. It should increase the TQ 90 Ft lbs or so.

 

[16kOrBust]

Oh I read your whole post alright I also noticed you "forgot" to mention the Camaro has 420 FTQ to the Mustang's 390 FTQ. The extra 30 FTQ should have helped it get out of the hole better.

If I got beat by 0.4 sec [about 65 feet at 110.8 mph] in a 1/4 mile drag race I would consider it getting killed. As I said I kind of like the Camaro SS but in 2011 at least Mustang has got them beat. It will be interesting to see what GM does in 2012.

I haven't had the Shelby at the track yet. I need to install my 2.875 upper pulley and 10% overdrive lower pulley before going. It should increase the TQ 90 Ft lbs or so.

I don't see GM stepping it up so soon (2012), especially considering how long it took them to release the fifth gen Camaro in the first place. :lol1: Honestly, I just think they need to design a car that can compete with the Mustangs sales (ie make a car that looks-wise everyone wants to buy, including the majority of females).

I've always said the reason Fbody sales suck so bad compared to Mustangs is because Ford designed a cheap car (low to mid 20s) that girls of all ages want to buy (V6 auto convertible), and we all know it's the looks that make these sales. How many women have you seen driving a V6 auto convertible Firebird or Camaro? I personally don't see any, but I see thousands driving V6 vert Mustangs, and it's 100% because what girl looks at a convertible (or even coupe) V6 Firebird or Camaro and goes, "THAT'S the car I want to be cruisin around in..."

They did a little better looks-wise with the new Camaro but overall I still don't see it making too many girls want to shell out for a V6 auto, especially women, and especially when the Mustangs look the way they do. If performance was the big factor for sales and cause for GM to step up their game again so soon, then the new Camaro sales should have decimated GT sales the past year or so, especially considering so many people were holding out for the 2011 GT, and the last sales numbers I saw didn't show much decimation. Really it was just mediocre wins in certain months probably more related to the million year hype of the new Camaro and the Mustang buyers waiting on the 2011.

If GM could design a car to win over the female purchasing population, their sales would skyrocket and it wouldn't just be gearheads and a few old guys buying Camaros because they want a high performance vehicle.

 

[ChiSVT]

LOL at all of the people talking trash about a stock 425fwhp car because it lost to a highly modified 700+rwhp car. I'm no big fan of them at all, but that would be like me wreckin a new stock Mustang GT on my bike and then a bunch of people talking about how slow the GT is. A 2010 Camaro still traps 111; not the fastest thing out there, but that's not slow for a bone stock car, especially considering the 2010 Mustang GT for about the same price traps 102. source: 2010 Camaro SS vs 2010 Ford Mustang GT vs 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T Comparison Test Drive: Muscle Car Competition - Popularmechanics.com

Anyways, continue on with the bashing because it's fun to read anyways. :lol1:

As much as I'm disappointed with the 2010 GTs performance your comparison is a huge stretch. You're comparing the fastest documented traps for a 2010 Camaro to the lowest traps produced by a 2010 GT.

 

[16kOrBust]

As much as I'm disappointed with the 2010 GTs performance your comparison is a huge stretch. You're comparing the fastest documented traps for a 2010 Camaro to the lowest traps produced by a 2010 GT.

As stated, I'm not gonna keep defending the new Camaro because I really don't care about it. I'll just point out that I just grabbed numbers straight from a single article (and posted the source) because they were run on the same day, same track, same driver, so you know they're at least comparable. Wasn't trying to find numbers in my favor, just comparable numbers considering different tracks, drivers, and weather conditions will cause a lot of variation in numbers. :beer:

 

[ChiSVT]

As stated, I'm not gonna keep defending the new Camaro because I really don't care about it. I'll just point out that I just grabbed numbers straight from a single article (and posted the source) because they were run on the same day, same track, same driver, so you know they're at least comparable. Wasn't trying to find numbers in my favor, just comparable numbers considering different tracks, drivers, and weather conditions will cause a lot of variation in numbers. :beer:

I see what you're saying...I don't know how they managed to run such a horrible time in the GT. A 13.0@111mph is on the higher end of the fastest stock Camaros, (the fastest recorded Camaro trapped 111mph). A 13.9@102mph is the slowest recorded mag time from a Mustang GT, even from the older 05-09s.

I do agree about variation though.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhNTDiPTFA"]YouTube- 2010 Chevy Camaro SS vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT, 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T - Car and Driver[/nomedia]

They only posted 0-60mph times, but the Camaro only ran a tenth quicker. Goes to show how easy it is to botch a time for a car.