When I think of averages, I'm taking what the majority of the people hitting the track are running consistently, excluding first timers, +2500' DA, or other obvious clusterfuks. For example, its safe to say that an average ET for a stock S197 is 13.8, or the average stock ET for a Mach 1 is 13.6, or average ET for a stock LS1 F-Body is 13.4, etc. Above average ETs are those passes that most of us pull off once or twice, but have a difficult time replicating. Magazine times are worthless, very entertaining, but not the info you want to go by when putting your money or credibility on the line.

 

That makes it sound like they maybe fairly well tweeked from the factory, like there may not be as much left on the table. What do you think? Will they open up much more with bolt ons, etc? I'm thinking full bolt ons, tires, and a tune will have them running low 12s, but that they maybe hitting a wall at that point without cams, FI, etc.

 

the track pack offered on the 2010 stang has 3.73 according to a promo video i saw. so gears shouldnt void it.

 

I agree with what you are saying...the problem with that just seems to be bias poisoning... People start using reasonable 'average' times for the car they are comparing and then using above average times from the car they want to be 'better'. If everyone could stick to using reasonable times I wouldn't diasgree or object one bit.

 

I couldn't agree more! Its like trying to argue politics, round and round it goes.....