You've just proved my point. And the automatic ran a 13.6 at 100+ unless Im mistaken.

 

Exactly, if it wasn't for negative equity I'd get one right now.

 

I want one so bad. The more video and pictures I see of them, the more upset I get because I know I wont be able to own one for atleast 5 years

 

a lot more of it than 1 shitty Mustang dyno results. Mustang vs. Dynojet is as different as SAE and metric.

 

Ok, this is becoming ignorant.

I have showed you a Mustang Dynograph, Fatnick has even chimed in and proven my point even further. The new mustangs are underrated, but not as much as you make them out to be.

So you would rather put your faith in what a magazine clearly makes out to be a rumor than a dyno graph that I just posted?

 

So than what are we arguing about? Not to mention the fucking car isn't even out yet and everyone knows Ford underates their engine all the time. My car makes 310bhp, but yet its putting 280 to the wheels.

 

Read the new MT mag Broccoli, you will see 267whp w/an auto. We all must buy some of these.

 

I dont know about all the time. The GT from 99-04 wasnt underrated, the Bullitt, the V6, the Cobra. The exception being the 03/04 Slightly underrated. But yes, they do under rate their engines, but not like GM did with the LS1.

 

Compared to a Mustang dyno......yes. A car that weighs practically the same as the current one and is running mid thirteens is making at least 280. It doesn't add up and I'm going to believe it this way till further proof is put forth. My car makes about 280 RWHP and does mid/low thirteens.

 

The downside is a 3500+ curb weight