04 GT auto vs 05 v6 auto

H

hp2k5

New Member

Dec 27, 2004

50

0

0

Dec 29, 2004

#1

• Dec 29, 2004

• #1

I think the the 05 v6 5 speed auto could give the 04 GT auto a run for its money. Anyone run the numbers yet on this comparison ?

 

0

05 'Stang

New Member

Oct 15, 2004

23

0

0

Dec 29, 2004

#2

• Dec 29, 2004

• #2

i agree it would be close....i think i remember an 04 GT auto tested 0-60 around 6 secs.... the 05 V6 is 7 secs..... so that's pretty close. Obviously the GT will beat it, but not by much. that 5-spd auto in the 05 is pretty aweseome. its a faster car than i expected.

 

DoubleONegative

Active Member

Jun 30, 2003

1,528

2

39

Tioga Cty PA

Dec 30, 2004

#3

• Dec 30, 2004

• #3

1 second is alot at 60 mph and a crap load at 100mph

i went 13.3 with my 01 Cobra against a 12.4 03 Cobra and it looked like a few buslengths

 

351CJ

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

1,732

1

0

Dec 31, 2004

#4

• Dec 31, 2004

• #4

C&D just tested a 05 Mutang V6 Auto - Feb 05 issue.

They got 6.9 sec 0-60 and 15.3 Sec @ 91 MPH in the 1/4. They commented that it was not much slower than a 99-04 Mustang GT auto.

 

BlackArtemis

Dated 4 Amandas. Nothing special. Got the job done

Founding Member

Sep 23, 2002

0

3

49

West Chester, PA

Dec 31, 2004

#5

• Dec 31, 2004

• #5

thats because they ran a 15.1 in a GT, C&D is the laughing stock of car mags.

.7-1.0 second difference is NOT giving a car a run for it's money. That's like me saying I am a threat to my friend's ls1 Camaro.

 

H

hp2k5

New Member

Dec 27, 2004

50

0

0

Dec 31, 2004

#6

• Dec 31, 2004

• #6

351CJ said:

C&D just tested a 05 Mutang V6 Auto - Feb 05 issue.

They got 6.9 sec 0-60 and 15.3 Sec @ 91 MPH in the 1/4. They commented that it was not much slower than a 99-04 Mustang GT auto.

Click to expand...

Cool... Great to see ya back CJ... Thanks for the info from C&D

With a good tune and some minor performance adjustments that little V6 could definitely give the 99-04 GTs a run.

 

yellow_99_gt

Founding Member

Aug 1, 1999

468

0

0

Houston Texas

Jan 2, 2005

#7

• Jan 2, 2005

• #7

I know it doesn't qualify for the magazine race here, but my 99 GT auto was running 14.2's @97-98 back when it was stock.

 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Mod Dude

Feb 18, 2001

43,349

18,085

224

Massachusetts

Jan 2, 2005

#8

• Jan 2, 2005

• #8

yellow_99_gt said:

I know it doesn't qualify for the magazine race here, but my 99 GT auto was running 14.2's @97-98 back when it was stock.

Click to expand...

I've also witnessed a Bone Stock '02 GT Automatic run a 14.2.

The difference between a 14.2 run and a 15.3 at the track is many, many carlenghts.

 

JonJon

Founding Member

Aug 16, 2002

4,801

1

68

back in Marylands

Jan 2, 2005

#9

• Jan 2, 2005

• #9

Oh please, this is ridiculous. PLEASE stop reading these stupid magazines.

 

K

Klay

New Member

Dec 16, 2004

50

0

0

CA

Jan 3, 2005

#10

• Jan 3, 2005

• #10

Ya i agree, magazines prove nothing especially considering they always seem to be slower than what the car is actually capable of. I mean there is a 13.35 documented here of a gt run (although the guy is a good driver) when they tested it at 13.8 if im not mistaken. Anyways, don't count on what magazines say