'05 Mustang GT HP#'s from MotorTrend

Omegalock · Dec 22, 2003

mustangman2000 said:
You are not even worth argueing with especially when you tell me to STFU because I gave you MY opoin just like you gave everybody YOURS. (Which I am sure Bill Ford really values).

I'm not worth arguing with yet you reply anyway. Are you able to grasp the irony in that? You didn't just give your opinion you attempted to tell me what I could and could not say about "your" car. If you would like to critque what somebody has to say fine but when you see fit to clamber upon your high horse and dare tell me what my opinion should be then yes you get the STFU. BTW I'd hope Bill Ford would appreciate an honest critque of his products instead of an inane butt kissing session from yesmen.

Play nice everyone.

Yes sir!

WaltA · Dec 22, 2003

351CJ said:
I sure hope that they rate the GT at "only" 300 HP because it will help keep the insurance rates down.

I believe it more likely that this is the worse-case HP for a "good" engine.

There are always variations in manufacturing. Ford only wants to state the minimum HP, which is what the HP will be when all the variations and tolerance allowed by design, go to their extreme.

mustangman2000 · Dec 22, 2003

Omegalock said:
I'm not worth arguing with yet you reply anyway. Are you able to grasp the irony in that? You didn't just give your opinion you attempted to tell me what I could and could not say about "your" car. If you would like to critque what somebody has to say fine but when you see fit to clamber upon your high horse and dare tell me what my opinion should be then yes you get the STFU. BTW I'd hope Bill Ford would appreciate an honest critque of his products instead of an inane butt kissing session from yesmen.

what ever dude

blazinsteed · Dec 22, 2003

The mach 1 is making in between 275 and 290 on average. which translates to around 325-330 at the crank

Sir Hacksalot · Dec 22, 2003

I am encouraged by those advertised numbers. As it stands, now, I have never seen or heard of an 03 Cobra dynoing at less than 360 RWHP. The new stang is going to be in the 250-260 RWHP range, which with some simple mods (gears, slicks, etc.) and some driving skills, could be a legit low 13 second car.

300 HP before CAI, pulleys, exhaust, etc.? Color me happy. As for the weight of the car, it's a it portly, but hey, heated seats, power everthing, and hopefully a killer soundsystem may make it worth it.

Hax

SadbutTrue · Dec 22, 2003

If its geared like current mustangs, its at least a 40 hp bump over them with no weight gain, a superior chassic, and the same engine and tranny. Since GTs are running high 13s already, mid and even low 13s should be well within reach. I t won't be quite as fast as the mach, but like others have said the power curve should also be better, further enhancing the already better peak numbers. Be happy people, this is going to be a great car.And at least the rumors of a 3800 lb car are vanquished now.

mp67 · Dec 22, 2003

Omegalock said:
Ok just read the all important bit of info of weight on BON.

3425 lbs. Very fat an extra hundred pounds over the Mach 1. And if the numbers are accurate it's got basically the same power as the Mach so unfortunately....it's not gonna be as fast as the Mach and nowhere near as being LS1 fast(unless it's geared properly). Ahhh well can't win them all. It did say though that it had a 52/48 weight distrubution so that's a posititve.

Of course its not going to be as fast as the Mach 1. It is a GT. One step below the Mach and two below the Cobra. And Ford is not going to compete against a car that is not even in production anymore,(LS1) they don't have to. Look at it this way. The new one will look tons better than the bathtub looking design of the LS1. Here are the stepping stones. Base model with V6-GT-Mach 1-2006 Shelby model-Cobra. They have to step the horsepower and performance up appropriately to justify pricing on each model. You want more HP out of the GT, it would drive sticker up. If I remember correctly, the LS1 fully loaded had a sticker price for almost as much as the cobra. With the cobra you get supercharger, which everyone knows only takes a pulley change, exhaust upgrade and reprogrammed chip to push 500hp, plus you get IRS for better handleing. Someone mentioned the GTO. That car will cost as much as the cobra, so how can you compare it to the GT? If anyone is worried about a GTO, spend the dollars for the cobra and lay waste to any GTO you find. Hell, I'll bet the GTO will not even see too many years of production. Besides, peak HP #'s don't win races. What matters is having more HP across the entire RPM range. Thats what wins races. I would bet that with the 3v design over the 2v that the range is going to be better. Just my opinion anyway. You can make any car as fast as your pockets are deep. If they gave it 325HP everyone here who buys one would still be modifying it. So whats in a #. Peace.

Omegalock · Dec 22, 2003

mp67 said:
Of course its not going to be as fast as the Mach 1. It is a GT. One step below the Mach and two below the Cobra. And Ford is not going to compete against a car that is not even in production anymore,(LS1) they don't have to. Look at it this way. The new one will look tons better than the bathtub looking design of the LS1. Here are the stepping stones. Base model with V6-GT-Mach 1-2006 Shelby model-Cobra. They have to step the horsepower and performance up appropriately to justify pricing on each model. You want more HP out of the GT, it would drive sticker up. If I remember correctly, the LS1 fully loaded had a sticker price for almost as much as the cobra. With the cobra you get supercharger, which everyone knows only takes a pulley change, exhaust upgrade and reprogrammed chip to push 500hp, plus you get IRS for better handleing. Someone mentioned the GTO. That car will cost as much as the cobra, so how can you compare it to the GT? If anyone is worried about a GTO, spend the dollars for the cobra and lay waste to any GTO you find. Hell, I'll bet the GTO will not even see too many years of production. Besides, peak HP #'s don't win races. What matters is having more HP across the entire RPM range. Thats what wins races. I would bet that with the 3v design over the 2v that the range is going to be better. Just my opinion anyway. You can make any car as fast as your pockets are deep. If they gave it 325HP everyone here who buys one would still be modifying it. So whats in a #. Peace.

Well don't automatically assume that just because it's a GT it'll automatically be slower than the Mach. Or should be for that matter. Case in point the current GT is as fast or faster than some Cobras from the 80s and the new GT will definately be faster than those Cobras. It's not unheard of that the latest generation GTs are as fast as the top of the line of the previous generations. And Ford's own engineers were aiming this car to be an LS1 slayer. Even though the Fbody is now dead it still has a large fanbase a fanbase that is hungry for another pony car. A fanbase that isn't going to be easy to sway into buying a Mustang basically if you beat them into submission with power however they'll be much more tractable.

351CJ · Dec 22, 2003

mp67 said:
Of course its not going to be as fast as the Mach 1. It is a GT. One step below the Mach and two below the Cobra.

You're forgetting that the new 3V 4.6L has VCT. It may only have 315 lb. ft. PEAK torque, but with VCT it will probably have a ton more torque at low RPM's. When the Lincoln LS V8 got VCT & ETC it knocked a full second off it's 0-60 time and .8 sec. off the 1/4 and yes the 2003/4 LS is heavier than the original. I'd expect the new GT to be very close to the speed of the old Mach 1 and in additon it runs on 87 octane, not 91.

The Mach 1 may return in 2006. I'm starting to belive there will be a new Mach 1 with a 5.4L, 3 valve, VCT engine. If they raise the compression ratio to 10.5:1 on the Mach it could have 360 HP / 380 lb ft. and be almost as fast as the 2003-4 Cobra. :worship:

mp67 · Dec 22, 2003

Omegalock said:
Well don't automatically assume that just because it's a GT it'll automatically be slower than the Mach. Or should be for that matter. Case in point the current GT is as fast or faster than some Cobras from the 80s and the new GT will definately be faster than those Cobras. It's not unheard of that the latest generation GTs are as fast as the top of the line of the previous generations. And Ford's own engineers were aiming this car to be an LS1 slayer. Even though the Fbody is now dead it still has a large fanbase a fanbase that is hungry for another pony car. A fanbase that isn't going to be easy to sway into buying a Mustang basically if you beat them into submission with power however they'll be much more tractable.

Yeah, it may be faster than the 03 Mach, but my point really is that in 04 the Mach will get a boost as well. And they have to keep performance in line with each one's price. The 03 GT is slower than the 03 mach, and price shows that, so it stands to reason the 04 GT will be slower than the 04 mach and prices should reflect that. Its hard to believe Ford was aiming this GT to be a LS1 slayer when they never did that for the GT when the LS1 was in production. I think the last numbers I saw on the last production years of the LS1's to include Camaro and Firebird was that the mustang outsold those two combined by well over a two to one ratio. Besides, the LS1's were alot more expensive than the GT's, so you get the performance you pay for. Peace.

mp67 · Dec 22, 2003

351CJ said:
You're forgetting that the new 3V 4.6L has VCT. It may only have 315 lb. ft. PEAK torque, but with VCT it will probably have a ton more torque at low RPM's. When the Lincoln LS V8 got VCT & ETC it knocked a full second off it's 0-60 time and .8 sec. off the 1/4 and yes the 2003/4 LS is heavier than the original. I'd expect the new GT to be very close to the speed of the old Mach 1 and in additon it runs on 87 octane, not 91.

The Mach 1 may return in 2006. I'm starting to belive there will be a new Mach 1 with a 5.4L, 3 valve, VCT engine. If they raise the compression ratio to 10.5:1 on the Mach it could have 360 HP / 380 lb ft. and be almost as fast as the 2003-4 Cobra. :worship:

Me thinks you missed the part of my thread that said peak hp #'s don't win races but a better hp # across the rpm range is best. I agree with what your saying about the torque too. Peak torque #'s don't win races either. I don't think they will raise the Mach #'s that high(maybe I'm wrong) because I believe there will be an 06 Shelby. That should fall inbetween the Mach and Cobra. Shelby has signed back on with Ford and said he feels the new Mustang platform is a good platform to work with. I don't think Ford will allow him to go above the SVT team and outdo the cobra, cause Ford has too much invested in it. One thing is for sure, from the V6 platform to the GT to the Mach and possibly Shelby to the Cobra, good things are coming from Ford. Just like in the 60's when there were so many ways to opt for on the Mustang. Then you had hardtops, convertibles, fastbacks, GT's, 6 cylinder's, small block V8's, bigblocks, Shelby's Mach 1's, Boss 302's, and so on. Ford is getting back to the roots of what made America's first and now only ponycar successful. Instead of complaining about a few Hp #'s lets just buy the model we want and make it as fast as we want. Peace.

asa96fmc · Dec 22, 2003

If you look at this dyno graph from one owner's car, you will notice the torque curve flattens out between 4500 and 6000 rpm. This was a benefit of the 5.4L cams in the current Mach 1 engine. If the VCT system can deliver something that is similar at between 3000 and 4500 rpm, the 0-60 time should be comparable to the current Mach 1 (low 5s). Also, the shipping weight of the Mach 1 shows as 3317 lbs on the dealer order sheet (I have a copy of one for my car). With fluids, the 3420 lb weight is about right for the Mach 1. If the current GT weight shows around 3300lbs and the new platform has gained about 150 lbs, which seems reasonable given the added size and niceties, then it's close to the current Mach 1. The quarter mile performance might be where we would see a difference, possibly a lower trap speed. I speculate somewhere around 100-101 mph in about 13.5 seconds. For a car that will run on 87 octane (the current Mach 1 engine needs 91+) and hopefully cost $26-$28K, that is a heck of deal if you ask me.

Joe 5.0 · Dec 22, 2003

I think it looks nice. You guys should stop whining, seriously. It's at least a 40hp boost over the 2V, so it'll run mid 13's as long as the gearing stays decent. Ever since the 99 Cobra EVERY V8, except the GT, Mustang has been underrated from the factory. Do I need to spell them out?

I cant wait to see it in person at the detroi auto show, and cant wait to see some dyno numbers and track times. I am predicting 280hp/300tq at the wheels.

SVTdriver · Dec 22, 2003

it really doesn't matter what the hp came out as. Somebody would still be whining for more. and people would still compare it to the dead f-body.

351CJ · Dec 22, 2003

mp67 said:
Me thinks you missed the part of my thread that said peak hp #'s don't win races but a better hp # across the rpm range is best. I agree with what your saying about the torque.

I didn't miss that post, we are in agreement that broad torqe curves are better than high peak torque. I was just saying that I belive the 2005 GT is going to be faster than you said it would be.

I also believe that the 4 valve heads will pretty much fade away. If you look at the 3V #'s on 87 octane gas 300 HP / 315 lb ft and then add about 5% if the compression ratio was raised to 10.5:1 for 91 Octane you have 315 HP & 330 lb ft which is essentially the same as the 2004 Mach 1 4 valve engine. Now throw into the mix that the 3 valve engine is lower cost to manufacture, smaller in size and lighter in weight, where does that leave the 4 valve heads?

Think about this for a model lineup (I've backed the Mach 1 #'s down a bit):

V6 - 4.0L, 2V, 87 gas 200 HP / 235 lb ft
Pony - 3.5L 4V (Duratec 35), 250 HP / 260 lb ft
GT - 4.6L 3V, 87 gas 300 HP / 315 lb ft.
Mach 1 - 5.4L 3V, 91 gas 350 HP / 370 lb. ft.
Shelby - 5.0, 4V, 91 gas 400 HP / 380 lb ft
SVT Cobra 5.4L 3V, 91 gas, Supercharged 450 HP / 450 lb ft

Now there's a model line up. Any Mustang you want, in 50 HP increments!

Of course I need to figure out where the 5.8L V10 - Boss 351 is going to fit into the model line up.

yellow5.0cobra · Dec 22, 2003

PonyGrl420 said:
I wish for once the mustang could run even with one of GM's performace cars outa the factory. Im still gona buy one eventualy, i guess thats why ford can get away with it, they are so popular people dont care. I hope it wil get better in the next few years

I agree.

Ever since I can also remember, the Mustang has been at the BOTTOM of the list when it comes to performance also.

Except the COBRA.

Rootus · Dec 22, 2003

That's the reason Ford is still making Mustangs, though. Cater to the masses, let the aftermarket take care of those who really need to go *fast*. See what having the highest performance got Chevy...

Dave

SVTdriver · Dec 22, 2003

What list are you talking about? As far as pony cars are concerned I think the list has gotten pretty short. Or should we talk about 40+ years of performance. Versus the chevy that rarely ever outsold mustangs. And died at 35. But don't worry like every other good chevy name. They'll bring it back in some form of fwd V6.

yellow5.0cobra · Dec 22, 2003

YEA I agree, but its true.

Mustang was never REALLY a performer.

SVTdriver · Dec 22, 2003

I guess that all depends on what type your driving. i've only lost to another cobra in my 97. but the 66 would get whooped hard. Although it's still on the original engine with no rebuild.

'05 Mustang GT HP#'s from MotorTrend

Omegalock

New Member

WaltA

mustangman2000

blazinsteed

New Member

Sir Hacksalot

SadbutTrue

mp67

Omegalock

New Member

351CJ

New Member

mp67

mp67

asa96fmc

Joe 5.0

SVTdriver

351CJ

New Member

yellow5.0cobra

Rootus

Officially Addicted

SVTdriver

yellow5.0cobra

SVTdriver

Similar threads

'05 Mustang GT HP#'s from MotorTrend

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Officially Addicted

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency