http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrxWlsCqvE8

RAPE!!!!

 

I am not sure what you were expecting...the Mustang is stock, 500lbs heavier and makes less power then you do with the trifecta tune.

Stock against stock would have been more interesting...but the 2v Mustangs are pretty slow in stock form.

 

Well he though he could beat me. He said no replacement for displacement

 

yeah mustangs aren't much for our cars. i beat a few of those generation mustang gts when i was stock. and i just raced an '05+gt the other night from a 40 roll and he was on my rear bumper the whole time

 

No doubt, the Cobalt SS's offer good bang-for-the-buck performance, but I don't think the facts back up that claim. Stock Mustang vs. modded Cobalt, sometimes, but not in general.

Fact is, the 99-04 GT's were quite comparable to the SS/SC price-wise, and they were capable of slightly faster 1/4-mile times, stock vs. stock. From a roll may be a different story, but for every low-14-second stock SS/SC, there are several low-14-second stock 99-04 5-speed GT's. Driver's race? Yeah. Mustangs "not much for Cobalts"? Not exactly.

How about the '05+ GT's? Typically they were more expensive (although you can get one for low 20's, now), but again, they are faster in the 1/4-mile than the SS/TC, stock for stock.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say the Mustangs are better, or that Cobalts suck or anything like that. I'm saying the facts don't back up the claim that "Mustangs aren't much for our [Cobalts]."

 

yeah with a stock mustang vs a normal ss/sc is a killing but a ss/tc massacre not worth the gas u wasted unless he was **** talking

 

the 99-04 gts i raced when i was stock....lost. and now that i'm modded. i've beat some '05+gts that were stock as well. like i said. they sit at bumper without gaining or losing any

 

Just to clarify things, the average 99-04 GT ran 14.1-14.2 stock, and the SS/SC ran what, 14.3-14.4 or so, and the fastest 99-04 GT ran 13.7 compared to the fastest SS/SC that ran 14.1x or something like that. Equal drivers from a dig in the 1/4 mile the 99-04 GT > SS/SC.

I've seen more than a dozen 05-07 GT's going for 15-17k and with low miles. It's a steal if you ask me.

 

Yeah, like I said, it's a driver's race between the two, so it's not surprising that the races go both ways depending on drivers. Fact is, though, it's misleading (at best) to say that "Mustangs aren't much for Cobalts" when they were equal or faster, stock vs. stock.


Yeah, there are some good deals on used ones, for sure.

I meant brand new, though. 2009 GT for low 20's. Can't beat that.

 

The ss/tc could probably be your first manual car ever and it could still beat a stock GT (that model).

 

okay. so i'ld lose to the fastest recorded time for a stock gt. this obviously wasn't that car. and for the record i went 14.22 stock...over, and over, and over again. numbers on paper for certain cars are a little different when you change the driver, car, road, conditions, etc. we can go back and forth all day. bottom line, they wanted to race, i raced them. i won.

 

I know exactly what you're saying and what you mean. Like I've said before, I got rid of my 01 Mustang GT for my SS/TC!!

I wouldnt say that considering the fastest SS/TC has gone 13.5 and the fastest 99-04 GT has gone 13.7. The SS/TC is a high 13 second car on average and the 99-04 GT's are low 14 second cars on average, so that is really just a .2-.3 difference on average.

 

No one is debating whether you won or not. In fact, I said it's a driver's race and that the races between the two would go either way.

My point is simply that saying "Mustangs are not much for our Cobalts" is misleading if stock vs. stock, the Mustangs are equally fast or faster than their Cobalt counterparts.

 

well, from my experiences....and ones of my friends as well....we ARE faster stock for stock

 

On average:

05+ GT > SS/TC > 99-04 GT > SS/SC

And that is going by stock 1/4 mile times!!

 

hahahaha okay. so is that why i've seen 3 99-04 gt's with intake and exhaust run slower times at the EXACT SAME TRACK i did my low 14s at....and many other cobalts?

 

Go look up the fastest time a 99-04 GT has ran and then look up the fastest SS/SC. How are you gonna say that 2 cars, one being .4 seconds faster with equal drivers with both cars pushed to the limit, how are they even, or how is the one .4 seconds slower the faster car??? While you've seen many 99-04 GT's run 14.5's, I've seen many SS/SC's run 14.9's, what is your point?? Seriously, this is stupid, the fastest SS/SC runs the about the same time as the 99-04 GT's average!! From a roll the SS/SC would/should dominate the 99-04 GT. And exhaust and intake on 99-04 GT's really mean nothing unless they have Long Tube headers and have a good tune.

 

Being that you ran 14.2, stock, that puts you among the faster SS/SC's. That is significantly better than average... so I would not be surprised to hear you would beat some 99-04 GT's in the 1/4 mile. On the other hand, while there are a handful of SS/SC's that have gone faster than 14.2, many more 99-04 GT's have done that and better... and gone as fast as 13.7, stock.

Because of the small "sample size", personal experience can be misleading as an indicator of the overall picture. For instance, my stock V6 Mustang ran right with an E55 AMG in the 1/8th mile. Obviously, that gives little indication of what SHOULD happen.

In the same way, an above-average SS/SC may beat several average or below-average GT's, but based on information from hundreds or thousands of owners of both GT's and SS/SC's, the GT is capable of faster times.

The night my friend's '01 GT went 14.1 bone stock, there were 3 other virtually stock 99-04 GTs there running bests in the low 14's.

We can play that game forever.

Fact is, there are too many variables to say that a handful of cars represent the average capability of thousands of other Mustangs or Cobalts out there.

 

x2

I ran a good time stock and so has a friend in an 05 gt(13.7)...we line them up on the street and he puts a car/car and a half on me and I start to creep back. At the end of the 1/4 I still lose. When equal drivers are present the 05+ gt will beat an 08+ ss/tc.

If you want to brag about beating a Mustang from 2001 lets reverse the rolls...match up a tuned 08 GT vs a stock 2001 z24 cav

 

are you 17 or 18?

 

I raced a 99-04 GT from a roll and he didn't stand a chance, kept falling behind, and I'm bone stock.

I think against a 3 valve stang, it would really be a driver's race as I've seen times here better than the stock quoted time for the GT. I think from a dig the 3v would have it on us (because the RWD launch) but from a roll it would be pretty much bang on.

 

EXACTLY!!!!!!! but his guyVVVV insists to compare the fastest to the fastest. which obviously the mustang would win if it was those two cars. but it isn't. so his arguement doesn't really offer anything other than the fastest stock gt would beat the fastest stock ssc....which it should. but those weren't the cars racing. and the time of the fastest gt does not represent ALL gts.

i really need to mount a video camera inside my car....

 

^^^^^^^^



I think the point is....it was not an intelligent stament to make considering the mustang when driven properly IS the faster car in the 1/4 mile than an SS/SC. (stock for stock that is) Make no mistake about it, alot of people love to hate on mustangs, but they should be respected. The new ones 05+ are nothing to laugh at. Especially this new 2010 GT with 400 ponies. Stock that is going to rape 95% of the cobalts on this board.

 

Exactly.

It's not to say that Cobalts can't legitimately beat Mustangs, or anything like that. My point was simply that the statement was misleading considering that the Mustangs are capable of as fast or faster times Stock vs. Stock. (99-04 GT vs. SS/SC , 05+ GT vs. SS/TC)

 

Check this slip. It was against a 99-04 stang GT that was bonestock as I am. He had a slightly better ET but I torched him off the tree so I won. If you can handle your balt, it's about as close to a drivers race you can get, stock versus stock.