i agree some cars run much better than advertised, but more than half a second quicker in the qtr. mile. give me a break theres no way that car was bone stock

 

[QUOTE=Mookie]what kind of stats are quoted in "about" this amount of time. What happened to precise measurements?[i didnt write the article just quoted it. still no way theres that much of a difference

 

Personally I put more faith in owner's numbers than ragazine racing. I used to own an LS1 and no one believed they could run 12's stock either when they first came out - til they'd been out awhile. Did they all run 12's? Hardly, but yes some did. These runs were witnessed by LS1 owners (the 300 SRT-8 vid I mean) who also checked out the car after, and there's no group of car owner's more sceptical of what other cars' performances are than Cam/bird drivers...except maybe EVO owners *L*.

 

What do you mean it is posted on this web site often. Stock ix going 12.8 which is .5 faster then most magazines

 

I raced a magnum srt-8 the other day from 40 to about 90. I pulled on him by about 3/4 car lengths. I didnt use 2nd gear and my windows were down. They are definetly nice sounding and plenty fast. But like most other handling is key.

 

I have that Issue of Speed, where they had a SRT-8 against a IX MR. Like said, the SRT did a 12.5 1/4 mile to a 12.9 with the MR, but on the Road Cource the MR beat the SRT by .5 sec. The driver of the MR, wrote the article and his boss, the Editor drove the SRT.

 

I dont mean to change the topic, but I just checked out this month's issue of Car&Driver and Im not nearly as impressed with the SRT8's as I am the new Escalade. It weighs almost 5,800 lbs and it runs a 14.8. in the 1/4.

 

Huh...I read this too, but I thought it said the SRT-8 did the 1/4 in 11.99? But I could be wrong.

But it can be faster than stock magazine claimed times as mentioned above, because most magazines say the stock Evo IX's run 13.5, but members are running 12.9/8. Sooooo.....13.2 - .5 = 12.7. Hmmmm... I want to run one now