Bolt on LNF vs 2012 5.0
05-15-2012, 02:00 PM
#28
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 07-24-11
Location: Bradenton, FL.
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcasm. You missed it.
The auto's got 3.15 gears and are faster than the manuals 90% of the time. After a few bolt-on's the autos start to pull away from the manual even better. It takes a sticky tire high rpm launch/perfect run to outrun the 6a trans. My brothers 100% bone stock auto car went a 12.51 at 113.7. After a tune, off road h-pipe, catback, weld rt-s rims, and air filter it clicked off an 11.7 at 119mph.
My car is a 3.31 6m with an x-pipe, catback, air filter, and tune. I just managed a 12.3 at 117mph this past saturday.
The auto's got 3.15 gears and are faster than the manuals 90% of the time. After a few bolt-on's the autos start to pull away from the manual even better. It takes a sticky tire high rpm launch/perfect run to outrun the 6a trans. My brothers 100% bone stock auto car went a 12.51 at 113.7. After a tune, off road h-pipe, catback, weld rt-s rims, and air filter it clicked off an 11.7 at 119mph.
My car is a 3.31 6m with an x-pipe, catback, air filter, and tune. I just managed a 12.3 at 117mph this past saturday.
well, if driven properly, the better gearing, and manual should kill every time. the autos will be more consistant obviously, but the weight reduction, better gearing, less drivetrain power loss of the manual SHOULD prevail.
autos normally weigh about 150-200lbs more, and have 5-7% more drivetrain loss.
Either way, i think you running a 12.3 @ 117 is great..
05-15-2012, 04:23 PM
#29
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 09-06-08
Location: east coast
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, if driven properly, the better gearing, and manual should kill every time. the autos will be more consistant obviously, but the weight reduction, better gearing, less drivetrain power loss of the manual SHOULD prevail.
autos normally weigh about 150-200lbs more, and have 5-7% more drivetrain loss.
Either way, i think you running a 12.3 @ 117 is great..
autos normally weigh about 150-200lbs more, and have 5-7% more drivetrain loss.
Either way, i think you running a 12.3 @ 117 is great..
I'm going off of facts that the auto's out run the manuals in these cars the majority of the time at the dragstrip. If the cars have the same mods and race at the track the auto will win 9 out of 10 times.
05-16-2012, 12:03 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: 10-11-10
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-16-2012, 09:13 AM
#35
Member
Join Date: 05-09-11
Location: Safety Harbor, FL.
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the SS/TC and the new Mustang 5.0 are respectable cars. Both are not to be F'd with. Thought about renting a GT through Hertz's Adrenaline collection for my bday 
05-16-2012, 09:23 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-19-09
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-17-2012, 11:51 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-09-09
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the 5.0's can get some good numbers with mods n whatnot, but I haven't seen any dip into the low 12's up here.. best I've seen was a 12.76 and just this past weekend I saw a Boss run a 13.4@109 which depressed me honestly lol.. I've seen those cars run 11.7@119 in the States.
05-19-2012, 08:25 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-23-10
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While that's some good driving i'd be willing to bet it's not stock. The MPH is way too high for a stocker. Ive seen stock 5.0's run 113mph in Cecil County Dragway's mineshaft november/december air...it doesn't get any better than Cecil's fall weather. We're talking 1000- below sea level conditions.
05-19-2012, 08:29 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-23-10
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know there's always out of the norm kinda like u and i. But for the most part I see bone stock ones going low 13s with only a 105-107 trap. Only a little better than the SS camaros. I ran one with intake exhaust tune and radials and still beat him. Left him at the tree as well
05-20-2012, 01:02 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-29-06
Location: california
Posts: 3,120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-20-2012, 03:18 AM
#42
lol that is true but ur comparing apples to oranges here. The new coyote motor was way overhyped, where as the cobalt was rated at a 14.8 @98-100mph stock. and its an econo box as well. for how much hype the new 5.0 recieved its def not that impressive to me
05-20-2012, 10:31 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-23-10
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would be impressive to you? The cars have gone DEEP 12s bone stock at 115ish verified by countless people. There have to be 15 just on the local Mustang forum who have run mid to high 12s stock in normal air (the 12.2 runs are obviously run under perfect conditions). Every test and tune I go to is littered with mid to low 11 second 5.0s with a small shot of spray and DRs, high 11 second cars with bolt-ons and DRs, etc. One quick look at the forums will show that there are what, a few guys that have even gone 12s in Cobalts? Your car runs 12.0 at 117, of course you are going to waste new 5.0s, why wouldn't you? Idiots can buy any car, a lot of them buy Mustangs, if course it is going to be common to see them run pathetic times, they are all over the place. Just like the kid running mid 14s in the SS/TC the other night, doesn't mean the car isn't impressive.
05-20-2012, 06:37 PM
#45
all im saying is im not really impressed. before they were released people were talking oh they will go high 11's with a radial blah blah blah. Now i dont hate hell i think its the first mustang that looks good, im just saying for the hype they recieved i dont feel they lived up to the bar set for them.
05-20-2012, 08:47 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-23-10
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your posts definitely show your extensive knowledge. How you can talk so much **** with a 12.0@117 car is beyond me. Not sure what track you go to, but around here that time wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. Seriously not trying to be a *****, just don't understand how guys on here arrive at the conclusions they do. A car gets released, countless guys run low to mid 12s bone stock, easy 11s on drag radials with minimal mods, a few in the 9s (with stock trans and long block no less) while still being street legal, 10s NA a few months after the cars came out, and you aren't impressed? Obviously there really isn't any reason to discuss the issue any further, really isn't worth anyone else wasting their time. Haters gonna hate.