05 GT performance times

mball · May 15, 2004

Saw this on a automotive website. 0-60 in 5.2 and the quarter in 13.9 @ 105 mph sounds pretty good. After doing some checking it seems the GT's times are not too bad at all compared to its closest competition in price and performance, the 350Z and the G35. The average 0-60 times for the G35 was 5.7 and the quarter was 14.6 @ 98 mph. The 350Z was a bit faster with 0-60 in 5.4 and the quarter in 14.2 @ 101 mph.

falchulk · May 16, 2004

First, the gt should be mid 13's easy. The 350z in real life runs 5.9 to 60. The g35 is 6.3 to 6.5.

mattdee1 · May 16, 2004

mball said:
Saw this on a automotive website. 0-60 in 5.2 and the quarter in 13.9 @ 105 mph sounds pretty good. After doing some checking it seems the GT's times are not too bad at all compared to its closest competition in price and performance, the 350Z and the G35. The average 0-60 times for the G35 was 5.7 and the quarter was 14.6 @ 98 mph. The 350Z was a bit faster with 0-60 in 5.4 and the quarter in 14.2 @ 101 mph.

That doesn't sound right to me at all. A car that traps at 105MPH should be capable of way better than 13.9.

sweet~Low~93 · May 17, 2004

mattdee1 said:
That doesn't sound right .

A car that traps at 105MPH should be capable of way better than 13.9.

STANGNET Calculator give this-

E/t 13.11 = 3425 lbs. 300hp.
104.25 MPH from - 3425 lbs. -300hp-

See what it will do with a Stang driver

GreyGoose · May 17, 2004

I think those times might be for the new 5Speed Auto.... not the Manual.... so it's look too be one quick bitch even with the auto...

GelatiCruiser · May 19, 2004

Even so....if you're trapping 105, and you can light the tree well....then you'll be looking at better than 13.9....unless you stop to pick up a paper on your way.

CatmanJJ · May 19, 2004

With a 105 mph trap, 13.9 seems piss poor at best, must have been lighting them tires up pretty good, "believe me I know from experience dude", on the launch to do that.

RICKS · May 19, 2004

Alot of times the magazines don't experiment much with launches. They drive the car in the 1/4 in a manner that the "average Joe Public" could expect to easilty replicate themselves, and in a way that can consistently be duplicated with all the other cars they test such that testing is consistent from car to car. Yeah, it's B.S.. And then again, some mags go out there and wring the car for all its got (Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords comes to mind first). A 105 mph trapspeed should translate into 13.20-13.40, depending on how good the torque grunts out of the hole.

RICKS · May 19, 2004

and you can light the tree well

BTW, reaction time at the tree has no effect on e.t.. The clock doesn't start until you leave the beams. This means the tree could go to green, you could decide to eat a ham sandwich and enjoy a soda, THEN, drop the clutch and rip off a great time.

CatmanJJ · May 19, 2004

I'm willing to bet it's an estimate anyway, I've read tons of rags featuring the new Mustang and there have been no official tests yet.

rich8566 · May 28, 2004

Horsepower Ratings

Just talked to the dealership owner where I ordered my 05 Stang GT today. He states that the 300 HP is conservative and is for publication and insurance purposes only. The motor is actually stonger than 300 HP.

calvado · May 29, 2004

A dealer won't say of course that's lower or at the 300 hp mark....
he's not crazy.. he want you to buy the car..
think about it.

MustangSteve007 · May 29, 2004

No its true, i herd this engine, like the cobra, is under rated for those reasons.

351CJ · May 29, 2004

MM&FF claims they put an 05 GT on a dyno and got 295 RWHP. That menas its more like 320 - 330 HP at the crank.

The Ford engineer I spoke with said: "It has a very robust 300 HP".
I tried to pin him down on how much HP it really has. I mentioned the MM&FF 295 RWHP #. He got a startled look on his face and said "It's better than the Mach 1 engine. In some ways A LOT better. It has a much better torque curve."

So I tried to pin him down again saying why are you rating it @ 300 HP when it's sounding pretty clear that it has a lot more. His reply was that the official ratings are chosen by marketing for many reasons. Insurance rating being one of them with other reasons being that they want to make sure that they never again have an engine (like the 01 Cobra) that would not meet its advertised HP rating under ANY circumstances.

I have the feeling that the 05 is going to be a screamer!

numenor27 · May 29, 2004

295 rwhp nice!

blazinsteed · May 29, 2004

it was the 99 that was an underpreformer.

scottie1113 · May 29, 2004

351CJ said:
MM&FF claims they put an 05 GT on a dyno and got 295 RWHP. That menas its more like 320 - 330 HP at the crank.

The Ford engineer I spoke with said: "It has a very robust 300 HP".
I tried to pin him down on how much HP it really has. I mentioned the MM&FF 295 RWHP #. He got a startled look on his face and said "It's better than the Mach 1 engine. In some ways A LOT better. It has a much better torque curve."

So I tried to pin him down again saying why are you rating it @ 300 HP when it's sounding pretty clear that it has a lot more. His reply was that the official ratings are chosen by marketing for many reasons. Insurance rating being one of them with other reasons being that they want to make sure that they never again have an engine (like the 01 Cobra) that would not meet its advertised HP rating under ANY circumstances.

I have the feeling that the 05 is going to be a screamer!

Underpromise and overdeliver. It's a lot better than the other way around.

As for the major car mags not getting times as good as, say, MM&FF, it doesn't matter. These guys are not into the 1/4 (neither am I) and they test all cars in the same way. That way you can get a relatively constant standard for comparison against other cars. Times vary due to weather conditions at the track.

You track guys will probably all get better times than they do. Still, from what I've seen, the new Mustang is going to deliver very respectable performance even in stock form. It's going to be a great car.

GelatiCruiser · Jun 1, 2004

RICKS said:
BTW, reaction time at the tree has no effect on e.t.. The clock doesn't start until you leave the beams. This means the tree could go to green, you could decide to eat a ham sandwich and enjoy a soda, THEN, drop the clutch and rip off a great time.

No doubt....by "light the tree well", I mean get out of the box....good 60' times can net you a nice run.

Yellow99Saleen · Jun 1, 2004

If it puts out a true 295 rwhp, then it will trap better than 13.9. My car only puts out 308, all be it with way more torque and i hit 13.1. My best trap speed was 109. Only reason i could see magazines making the predictions on what it will trap is because of the lack of tire and grip off the line. But anyways this is all speculation. When the z06 came out they all predicted mid 12's at best. Then car and driver and motor trend ripped off 12.0's.

4 years ago in a comparison with an SS, T/A, gtp, r/t pick up, and a lightning. Mototr trend got a 99 gt to do a 5.4 0-60 and a 14.0 flat 1/4 @99.

aete2 · Jun 1, 2004

good to hear More power please!

05 GT performance times

mball

Banned

falchulk

New Member

mattdee1

Active Member

sweet~Low~93

New Member

GreyGoose

New Member

GelatiCruiser

CatmanJJ

Captain Tangnet

RICKS

New Member

RICKS

New Member

CatmanJJ

Captain Tangnet

rich8566

New Member

calvado

New Member

MustangSteve007

New Member

351CJ

New Member

numenor27

New Member

blazinsteed

New Member

scottie1113

GelatiCruiser

Yellow99Saleen

New Member

aete2

Similar threads

05 GT performance times

Banned

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Captain Tangnet

New Member

New Member

Captain Tangnet

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency