5.0

Red__Zed · 09-22-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

Yeah, it was really a huge inconvenience to post up a picture--why would you bother posting something obviously false when everyone has access to it and the ability to call you out on it?

?

red6spd · 09-22-2011, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

?

Did not even see you post this... Yea I was wrong. Not everyone is perfect like you sorry. Any response on the vids I posted??? I mean I'm sure you will just come up with some kind of excuse like "oh that parking lot favored the Z" And for a car having almost 100hp more running the quarter in only like what 3-4 tenths of a second more is not very impressive. Let me save you the time...

Red_Zed: There are guys running low 12's stock so all the test and magazines that show it running 13's are wrong.

Red__Zed · 09-22-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red6spd

Did not even see you post this... Yea I was wrong. Not everyone is perfect like you sorry. Any response on the vids I posted??? I mean I'm sure you will just come up with some kind of excuse like "oh that parking lot favored the Z" And for a car having almost 100hp more running the quarter in only like what 3-4 tenths of a second more is not very impressive. Let me save you the time...

Red_Zed: There are guys running low 12's stock so all the test and magazines that show it running 13's are wrong.

What response do you want to the vids? I saw nothing we didn't already know....the z puts down great magazine numbers.

Blades can give you the explanation for why his crack into the 12s doesn't compare to mag times. I've explained it once, and you seem to have missed it. And no one runs the z low 12s stock....

red6spd · 09-22-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

What response do you want to the vids? I saw nothing we didn't already know....the z puts down great magazine numbers.

Blades can give you the explanation for why his crack into the 12s doesn't compare to mag times. I've explained it once, and you seem to have missed it. And no one runs the z low 12s stock....

LOL, so the Z puts down great "mag numbers?" WTF does that mean. So in the real world your 5.0 would stop better and pull better skid pad results slalom etc?? But once we do a test for a Mag the Z is killing the Stang in the turns? Just did a quick search on Youtube and it seems like a BONE STOCK I made that big cause alot of people think BONE STOCK means slicks are running mid to low 13's.

Blades car hit a 12.9. Thats not that far off the 13.2-13.3 the Z runs (according to most mags) and his is an Auto which is faster then the 6MT. I read and see the 5.0 running 13-13.4 ish, but here from people that the car is running mid 12's stock.

b1adesofcha0s · 09-22-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

What response do you want to the vids? I saw nothing we didn't already know....the z puts down great magazine numbers.

Blades can give you the explanation for why his crack into the 12s doesn't compare to mag times. I've explained it once, and you seem to have missed it. And no one runs the z low 12s stock....

That run was all just luck. Perfect conditions + perfect time = that run. Haven't been able to get into the 12's again after that run, not even after modding. Just because it happened once doesn't mean it is the norm. That was a run under ideal conditions, which is never the case 99.99% of the time so it doesn't really mean anything. Look at the average times people are getting, that's a better indication of a car's capability.

b1adesofcha0s · 09-22-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red6spd

LOL, so the Z puts down great "mag numbers?" WTF does that mean. So in the real world your 5.0 would stop better and pull better skid pad results slalom etc?? But once we do a test for a Mag the Z is killing the Stang in the turns? Just did a quick search on Youtube and it seems like a BONE STOCK I made that big cause alot of people think BONE STOCK means slicks are running mid to low 13's.

Blades car hit a 12.9. Thats not that far off the 13.2-13.3 the Z runs (according to most mags) and his is an Auto which is faster then the 6MT. I read and see the 5.0 running 13-13.4 ish, but here from people that the car is running mid 12's stock.

Steve's time in the 5.0 was in the high 12's and would have been better if his wheels weren't spinning all the way down the track.

red6spd · 09-22-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b1adesofcha0s

Steve's time in the 5.0 was in the high 12's and would have been better if his wheels weren't spinning all the way down the track.

The mods were not huge, but he was not stock.

Red__Zed · 09-22-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red6spd

LOL, so the Z puts down great "mag numbers?" WTF does that mean. So in the real world your 5.0 would stop better and pull better skid pad results slalom etc?? But once we do a test for a Mag the Z is killing the Stang in the turns? Just did a quick search on Youtube and it seems like a BONE STOCK I made that big cause alot of people think BONE STOCK means slicks are running mid to low 13's.

Blades car hit a 12.9. Thats not that far off the 13.2-13.3 the Z runs (according to most mags) and his is an Auto which is faster then the 6MT. I read and see the 5.0 running 13-13.4 ish, but here from people that the car is running mid 12's stock.

Putting down great mag numbers means it does well in the objective testing they do...Just like AMD designs chips around beating Intel in benchmarks, without much of a focus on real world performance. For instance, the balance in the Z is set up poorly for performance (severe understeer), but it sets it up to lay down eye-popping skidpad numbers. Because the test is done under constant acceleration around a 200ft skidpad, the Z's handling is neutral *during that specific test*. If you look at the real world numbers, on a track, you often see the Z pulls nothing near the advertised levels of grip, because unless you enter the corner slowly and power out...you never see them. And on many corners, the Z doesn't have enough power to dump enough weight on the rear tires.
*
I feel like you are being unclear about what you are claiming on track times...can you clarify please?

Red__Zed · 09-22-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b1adesofcha0s

That run was all just luck. Perfect conditions + perfect time = that run. Haven't been able to get into the 12's again after that run, not even after modding. Just because it happened once doesn't mean it is the norm. That was a run under ideal conditions, which is never the case 99.99% of the time so it doesn't really mean anything. Look at the average times people are getting, that's a better indication of a car's capability.

And published times are corrected. I think that run corrected to a 13.2 or so. Still fast, just pointless to compare to a time that has had the correction applied.

Also, the non-stock rear tires likely affected the time by allowing controlled wheelspin

b1adesofcha0s · 09-22-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

And published times are corrected. I think that run corrected to a 13.2 or so. Still fast, just pointless to compare to a time that has had the correction applied.

Also, the non-stock rear tires likely affected the time by allowing controlled wheelspin

Shush! I think it was corrected to a 13.0 from what I remember. I checked a while ago though.

Or maybe the stock tires would have had no wheelspin at all so I could have done a little better????

Red__Zed · 09-22-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b1adesofcha0s

Shush! I think it was corrected to a 13.0 from what I remember. I checked a while ago though.

Or maybe the stock tires would have had no wheelspin at all so I could have done a little better????

Haha, or you would have bogged

Looking back, 13.16 is the Corrected time I see...which is pretty beast

b1adesofcha0s · 09-22-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

Haha, or you would have bogged

Looking back, 13.16 is the Corrected time I see...which is pretty beast

Let's just say I would have been faster

Hopefully I can finally beat that time when I get my intakes on. Otherwise I'm the only person who managed to make their car slower after adding mods

Red__Zed · 09-22-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b1adesofcha0s

Let's just say I would have been faster

Hopefully I can finally beat that time when I get my intakes on. Otherwise I'm the only person who managed to make their car slower after adding mods

That's the thing...your car is probably faster now...you just aren't comparing corrected times. Did you do corrections on your last set of runs?

b1adesofcha0s · 09-22-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

That's the thing...your car is probably faster now...you just aren't comparing corrected times. Did you do corrections on your last set of runs?

No, but I will go do it once I get home and look at my time slips again.

shadoquad · 09-22-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red__Zed

Putting down great mag numbers means it does well in the objective testing they do...Just like AMD designs chips around beating Intel in benchmarks, without much of a focus on real world performance. For instance, the balance in the Z is set up poorly for performance (severe understeer), but it sets it up to lay down eye-popping skidpad numbers. Because the test is done under constant acceleration around a 200ft skidpad, the Z's handling is neutral *during that specific test*. If you look at the real world numbers, on a track, you often see the Z pulls nothing near the advertised levels of grip, because unless you enter the corner slowly and power out...you never see them. And on many corners, the Z doesn't have enough power to dump enough weight on the rear tires.
*
I feel like you are being unclear about what you are claiming on track times...can you clarify please?

Dude, the Z handles very, very well. I'm overwhelmed with its level of grip.

Granted, I've never tracked it, but it handles on rails in the twisties.