Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Engine/Tuning
2013 vs 2015 and newer torque numbers comparison
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cain96" data-source="post: 15556852" data-attributes="member: 184871"><p>Your reply was spot on for the analogy used.... however there was a key component missing: It still didn't address any of the questions I had asked. </p><p></p><p>1. Your response makes the assumption that all I care about are numbers.</p><p>2. If I'm not supposed to get caught up in numbers... then why is your quarter mile time / 60 ft launch numbers so important? With regards to your "winning vs looking good" Seems kind of hypocritical to tell me to only focus on what numbers YOU think are important....(last time I checked, those numbers I'm not supposed to care about play a key role in those important numbers that you care about.. aka "winning"</p><p>2. Wanting to know the intricacies of how and where the numbers come from was what I was looking for... so that I may adjust my build accordingly.</p><p>3. Also, the assumption that a person can't look good and still perform well (based on the analogy) is a very limited thought process.</p><p></p><p>The sad thing is this will probably be the only responses I get on this topic. Zyborg... I bid you adieu... The great number of assumptions made on your part were most entertaining.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cain96, post: 15556852, member: 184871"] Your reply was spot on for the analogy used.... however there was a key component missing: It still didn't address any of the questions I had asked. 1. Your response makes the assumption that all I care about are numbers. 2. If I'm not supposed to get caught up in numbers... then why is your quarter mile time / 60 ft launch numbers so important? With regards to your "winning vs looking good" Seems kind of hypocritical to tell me to only focus on what numbers YOU think are important....(last time I checked, those numbers I'm not supposed to care about play a key role in those important numbers that you care about.. aka "winning" 2. Wanting to know the intricacies of how and where the numbers come from was what I was looking for... so that I may adjust my build accordingly. 3. Also, the assumption that a person can't look good and still perform well (based on the analogy) is a very limited thought process. The sad thing is this will probably be the only responses I get on this topic. Zyborg... I bid you adieu... The great number of assumptions made on your part were most entertaining. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Engine/Tuning
2013 vs 2015 and newer torque numbers comparison
Top