veedub vs. stangs

[*Steeda90GT*]

Actually your partially right, they dont know how to drive. They acheive their times by doing an avg run. One of their methods is "the drop clutch" method, which we all know spells nothing but trouble for any RWD car. Then what they do is take the average of 3 runs and thats the ET you get...I NEVER trust R&T and C&D.....Perfect example:

1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6

These runs were both taken from the "professional" drivers on that first link you sent me. We all know that 1987-1993 5.0 GTs were rated the same in terms of HP. (note: 1993 they changed their methods of HP testing...resulting in 205 HP vs 225 HP)

6/10s of a second is a LONG time. Thats car lengths in a street race and is roughly equal to 60HP. So are you telling me that the 88 5.0 had 60 more ponies under the hood or do you agree with my theory that you CAN NOT rely on these "professional" drivers.

Another example taken from your link:

1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 6.9 15.3
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1

Now the Cobra we all know came with GT40 heads, Cobra Intake, MAF, and 24lb injectors....it was rated at a very underestimated 240HP(People dynoed them stock and the flywheel HP was actually 255-260HP) and the GT gets blessed with 215HP...yet they managed to tool the GT down the line quicker than the mightier Cobra....both vehicles are identical in weight.

One last example to show you Im not biased against our cars..

1993 Pontiac Firebird Formula 6.1 14.7

My cousin owns the EXACT same car and ran a whopping best of 14.0@99MPH stock.

So you tell me, are you going to rely on these "professional drivers" to give you the correct data.