2005 GT 12.3 Quarter And No NOS!

Stork_ · Dec 13, 2004

Pearl02 said:
Just picked up the latest issue of Hot Rod magazine. They modified the car some to run12.3 in the quarter with no serious power adders

I'm sure you read that but I'm calling .

Sorry guys, the 05's are pigs.

More weight, less torque, more unaerodynamic than 99-04 = teh lose

The car would have to be making somewhere around 400 rwhp to see those times. Simply not possible with the aleged mod's.

Headers w/exhaust
Gears w/rear end mods
New suspension components front and rear Shocks/Springs
Skinnies up front and slicks out back
Full SCT tune

The article was simply another shamefull advertisement by Ford and SCT. Read the Feb 05 "5.0 Mustang and Super Fords" article. The entire article the authors are like "It seems sluggish, the transmission sucks, the stupid CPU shuts you down if you get on it a little bit, the dash is tacky" that doesn't sound like the best mustang ever built to me.

MoNsTaMaCk24 · Dec 13, 2004

Stork_ said:
I'm sure you read that but I'm calling .

Sorry guys, the 05's are pigs.

More weight, less torque, more unaerodynamic than 99-04 = teh lose

The car would have to be making somewhere around 400 rwhp to see those times. Simply not possible with the aleged mod's.

Headers w/exhaust
Gears w/rear end mods
New suspension components front and rear Shocks/Springs
Skinnies up front and slicks out back
Full SCT tune

The article was simply another shamefull advertisement by Ford and SCT. Read the Feb 05 "5.0 Mustang and Super Fords" article. The entire article the authors are like "It seems sluggish, the transmission sucks, the stupid CPU shuts you down if you get on it a little bit, the dash is tacky" that doesn't sound like the best mustang ever built to me.

I know 1 out of his 7 posts is genious!!!! He is right though! The only thing 05 stangs have going for them is motor... New 5.0 Mag I believe said the v6 will outhandle the GT with a rear sway bar... Correct if im wrong but pretty sure!

danny g · Dec 13, 2004

MoNsTaMaCk24 said:
He hangs out with Honda owners...

Your a herb! How does that make me a honda lover? I own a 96 gt. I like the 99's but think the 05's are the best of the bunch.

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 13, 2004

danny g said:
Well, its my OPINION that most people like the new stylr better. Be it stang owners or not. Seems like i always hear people complimenting the new style. Yes, the 99-04's are nice. i have a 96 and think the 96-98s look a little better. Both are nice though. Just seems that all the 99 - 04 owners out there are a tad biased. I think they cant admit it to themselves that the 05 looks better. Maybe they thought Ford woudl use the sn95 platform for another ten years.

I don't own either and I think the '05's are ugly. How's that for non bias? I think the '03-'04 Cobra's are the nices looking ever built.

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 13, 2004

Stork_ said:
I'm sure you read that but I'm calling .

Sorry guys, the 05's are pigs.

More weight, less torque, more unaerodynamic than 99-04 = teh lose

The car would have to be making somewhere around 400 rwhp to see those times. Simply not possible with the aleged mod's.

Headers w/exhaust
Gears w/rear end mods
New suspension components front and rear Shocks/Springs
Skinnies up front and slicks out back
Full SCT tune

The article was simply another shamefull advertisement by Ford and SCT. Read the Feb 05 "5.0 Mustang and Super Fords" article. The entire article the authors are like "It seems sluggish, the transmission sucks, the stupid CPU shuts you down if you get on it a little bit, the dash is tacky" that doesn't sound like the best mustang ever built to me.

Gonna have to disagree. On top of an additional 40hp, the '05's make more torque than the '04's, not less and they're suspension is considerably better than it's predecessors as well. True, it' is heavier, but it carries its weight much better in the saddle than the old SN-95 platform did, not to mention it's slightly longer wheel base makes it easier to get off the line than any Mustang previous. I don’t find it all that hard to believe, especially with a few bolt-ons…..but it still looks like @$$ soup! Maybe if it weren’t wearing Taurus wheels and got rid of that goofy rear spoiler and did a little something with the rear quarter window, it wouldn’t be so bad. But otherwise, I don’t care much for it’s look.

Stork_ · Dec 13, 2004

MoNsTaMaCk24 said:
New 5.0 Mag I believe said the v6 will outhandle the GT with a rear sway bar... Correct if im wrong but pretty sure!

Thats correct sir. 5.0 said V6 w/ sway will run circles around GT. God bless those Ford engineers.

Stork_ · Dec 13, 2004

Gearbanger 101 said:
Gonna have to disagree. On top of an additional 40hp, the '05's make more torque than the '04's, not less and they're suspension is considerably better than it's predecessors as well. True, it' is heavier, but it carries its weight much better in the saddle than the old SN-95 platform did, not to mention it's slightly longer wheel base makes it easier to get off the line than any Mustang previous. I don’t find it all that hard to believe, especially with a few bolt-ons…..but it still looks like @$$ soup! Maybe if it weren’t wearing Taurus wheels and got rid of that goofy rear spoiler and did a little something with the rear quarter window, it wouldn’t be so bad. But otherwise, I don’t care much for it’s look.

Dude, there is a term you need to learn. Parasitic loss.

Quick math, the old GT weighed @ +/-3000lbs. The new GT's weigh 3500lbs bone dry. So add driver and gas and you could easily be over 4000lbs pounds. Now according to phyics you'll need 425 rwhp to get a 4000lb car down the track in 12.3 seconds. UNDER PERFECT CONDITIONS. I know they lightened the car some but not enough to correct for human error and enviromental effects. Also I believe 7lbs eats up 1 hp. So when you consider the weight difference of the two, the new GT makes 300hp @ the crank minus an automatic (71.4hp) before it ever makes it through the drive train. SOOO the old GT made about 265 @ the crank and adjusted for weight difference the new GT's make 228.6. Are you starting to get the picture? Oh and BTW if you know of some headers that will add 150hp w/ tune let me know cause I'll buy 'em.

ADRENLN · Dec 13, 2004

im sure that the 05 is faster then then th99-04 gt. but it should be with 40 more horse. it is equal with the mach power wise. however with those same mods, i dont see mach's running 12.3. that is ridiculas! 03 cobras only run what, 12.8. and those are 4 valves. whats going on here?

oh by the way the looks do suck. 99-04 much better body lines. 05 front and side view are ok, but the back kills it.

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 13, 2004

Stork_ said:
Dude, there is a term you need to learn. Parasitic loss.

Quick math, the old GT weighed @ +/-3000lbs. The new GT's weigh 3500lbs bone dry. So add driver and gas and you could easily be over 4000lbs pounds. Now according to phyics you'll need 425 rwhp to get a 4000lb car down the track in 12.3 seconds. UNDER PERFECT CONDITIONS. I know they lightened the car some but not enough to correct for human error and enviromental effects. Also I believe 7lbs eats up 1 hp. So when you consider the weight difference of the two, the new GT makes 300hp @ the crank minus an automatic (71.4hp) before it ever makes it through the drive train. SOOO the old GT made about 265 @ the crank and adjusted for weight difference the new GT's make 228.6. Are you starting to get the picture? Oh and BTW if you know of some headers that will add 150hp w/ tune let me know cause I'll buy 'em.

Ummmm, thanks for the lesson…. “dude” Now let me teach you one. The term is known as Parasitic “DRAG”, not loss and refers to resistance created by one of two forces…. One is the general size and shape of the object in question. Those with many protrusions will have a higher drag than "clean" designs. Another is the friction between the wind and the surfaces themselves. Regardless, neither one has anything to do with what’s being discussed here, since they are barely noticeable at these low vehicle speeds. Here's a bit of a reference to help you along.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99/936163217.Eg.r.html
Now that that’s out of the way, where have you found a stock fully loaded late model SN-95 GT that weighs only 3000lbs? Even most of the old Fox bodies weighed more than that. Realistically, there’s only about a 200-250lb or so difference between that an ’05 GT and an ’04…..not 500lbs like you claim.

Forgetting what you learned out of a physics test book for a moment, it’s entirely possible to get a 4000lb car down the track to the tune of 12.3 with less than 425rwhp. Yes, vehicle weight does have an effect on acceleration, but so does weight distribution and the vehicles ability to transfer it. The suspension type/setting has a considerable amount to do with it, where the ’05 excels compared to that of the ’04 in both. There are several T-Bird Cougar owners such as my self who are doing it with far less that 425rwhp. As a matter of fact, an acquaintance of mine runs consistent 12.7’s and went best of 12.4X with as little as 330rwhp in his 3900lb (with him in it) T-Bird. I’m not really sure where you’re getting your math and reasoning from here (the new GT makes 300hp @ the crank minus an automatic (71.4hp) before it ever makes it through the drive train), So basically, you’re already knocking almost 25% of it’s horsepower off, before it even runs though the transmission, but I’ll let you in on a little secret here….the transmission is part of a vehicle drive train. And not all drive train loss is rated the same, considering the loss becomes less apparent on higher horsepower level outputs, than lower level. It’s not a strait cut 15%-20% (or in your reasoning, nearly 25%) no matter what! Now….are you starting to get the picture?

And….I have no idea where your header argument is from, but feel free to run with it anyway.

Sick96Stang · Dec 13, 2004

WHO CARES? Why is everybody arguing about how they think the 05 mustangs look? Most people are stating there opinion like its a fact. Whoever said most mustang owners think it looks good, how could you possible know that? Have you talked to every single mustang owner and took a poll on how they felt about the 05 mustangs. Maybe most of the people in your area or most of your friends like the look but that doenst mean most of the mustang owners like the look. As far as it running 12.3 with those mods I think its possible, slicks make a huge difference, as far as a 99+ GT doing it with those mods I could see that happening also, with the right driver I'm pretty sure its possible for a 99+ GT with those mods to hit that same time. Personally at first I didnt like the look of the 05 mustangs but it started to grow on me I'm intrested to see perfomance wise how the 05 mustang turns out when people really start modding them.

FalconGuy016 · Dec 13, 2004

Hey same here! If Ford didnt make that (somewhat ugly) thing, I wouldnt have bought an 04 GT

Stork_ · Dec 13, 2004

Gearbanger 101 said:
Ummmm, thanks for the lesson…. “dude” Now let me teach you one. The term is known as Parasitic “DRAG”, not loss and refers to resistance created by one of two forces…. One is the general size and shape of the object in question. Those with many protrusions will have a higher drag than "clean" designs. Another is the friction between the wind and the surfaces themselves. Regardless, neither one has anything to do with what’s being discussed here, since they are barely noticeable at these low vehicle speeds. Here's a bit of a reference to help you along.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99/936163217.Eg.r.html
Now that that’s out of the way, where have you found a stock fully loaded late model SN-95 GT that weighs only 3000lbs? Even most of the old Fox bodies weighed more than that. Realistically, there’s only about a 200-250lb or so difference between that an ’05 GT and an ’04…..not 500lbs like you claim.

Forgetting what you learned out of a physics test book for a moment, it’s entirely possible to get a 4000lb car down the track to the tune of 12.3 with less than 425rwhp. Yes, vehicle weight does have an effect on acceleration, but so does weight distribution and the vehicles ability to transfer it. The suspension type/setting has a considerable amount to do with it, where the ’05 excels compared to that of the ’04 in both. There are several T-Bird Cougar owners such as my self who are doing it with far less that 425rwhp. As a matter of fact, an acquaintance of mine runs consistent 12.7’s and went best of 12.4X with as little as 330rwhp in his 3900lb (with him in it) T-Bird. I’m not really sure where you’re getting your math and reasoning from here (the new GT makes 300hp @ the crank minus an automatic (71.4hp) before it ever makes it through the drive train), So basically, you’re already knocking almost 25% of it’s horsepower off, before it even runs though the transmission, but I’ll let you in on a little secret here….the transmission is part of a vehicle drive train. And not all drive train loss is rated the same, considering the loss becomes less apparent on higher horsepower level outputs, than lower level. It’s not a strait cut 15%-20% (or in your reasoning, nearly 25%) no matter what! Now….are you starting to get the picture?

And….I have no idea where your header argument is from, but feel free to run with it anyway.

No it's "loss" eh. As in the "parasitic loss" of horsepower and torque via turning rotating assemblys such as wheels and tires and axles and drive shafts etc eh. What you discribed is in fact "parasitic drag" eh. Which is another major set back b/c the 05 is about as aerodynamic as a refridgerator eh. Me and my car w/ a little less than 1/2 tank of gas weighed @ 3300lbs eh. But I also weigh 240lbs eh. Where I got that the car weighs 3500lbs is from Ford and Ford also claims that the car makes 300hp @ the crank eh. So like I said you lose about 1hp for every 7 pounds of weight eh. So the new 05 weighs about 500 more pounds so you divide 500 by 7 and you get 71.428 eh. The lates dyno numbers show that a stock 05 makes 245rwhp/261.3rwt and a stock 04 GT makes 216rwhp/262rwtq eh. So deduct the 71.428 hp for weight difference (and I don't know what the torque divider number is) and you'll have a measley 173.6 rwhp. 12.7's aren't 12.3's eh. And if you don't understand that 03-04 cobras don't go 12.3's stock and you believe that an 05 GT w/ headers will, than I suggest you buy an SRT-4 cause they can beat ANYTHING!!..eh.

Stork_ · Dec 13, 2004

Dateline FEB 05 "5.0 Mustang and SF", stock 05 GT ran 14.7 @ 95mph doooh!!!

xtrm281gt · Dec 13, 2004

The 05 mustang looks okay I suppose, just another chapter in the book... it's certainly not anything that really impresses me like a modena passin you by. Performance wise even if they can get it in the 12's NA so what? Do you have any idea how many people I see run 5.0s NA with 12 second passes in just one night at the track. Comparing the styling to previous stangs... it certainly can't touch a 94-04 Saleen, nor does it look nearly as nice as an 03-04 cobra or a Mach 1 new or old. My .02

kozumasbullitt · Dec 13, 2004

i work at a ford dealer and the 05 mustang gt is a dog! it is very sluggish in the mid range! the 99-04 gt has a way better feel.there is no way they did a 12.3! or they did and it was a ringer! 245rwhp is what it has an 03-04 cobra has about 360rwhp and w/slicks 12.3 is a possible time. those mods added 115rwhp! yeah right! im almost at 500rwhp w/ my combo so assuming the 05 gains, if it had my combo it would be a 1147rwhp car?????????

BLUE03GT · Dec 14, 2004

kozumasbullitt said:
i work at a ford dealer and the 05 mustang gt is a dog! it is very sluggish in the mid range! the 99-04 gt has a way better feel.there is no way they did a 12.3! or they did and it was a ringer! 245rwhp is what it has an 03-04 cobra has about 360rwhp and w/slicks 12.3 is a possible time. those mods added 115rwhp! yeah right! im almost at 500rwhp w/ my combo so assuming the 05 gains, if it had my combo it would be a 1147rwhp car?????????

Ummmm... first of alll...the 05's are Dynoing at around 265-275rwhp and a little more torque than that to the wheels as well... second of all the suspension is way better in the 05's and with slicks, gears, and all those mods it is possible to run low 12's... look at KenB's N/A 2V running 10's on 360 to the wheels

tontot77 · Dec 14, 2004

That car will become a legend, just wait... I'm happy to have it join our ranks in history...

Wayne S · Dec 14, 2004

MAC[H]Z said:
With those few mods there is now way you're going to get a 99-04 GT to run 12.30's

How much of a wager would you like to put on this? Here is one run from my car.

60.....2.011
330...5.431
1/8...8.321
mph..85.69
1000.10.797
1/4...12.893
mph..108.90

IM pretty sure I could pull 12.30s with gears, suspension, tune and some skinnys n slicks.
I would have no problem with picking up my money in NH if you want to put a wager on it. Most likely be done in your back yard anyway

Pearl02 · Dec 14, 2004

I really stirred up some spirited conversatons with this post. When I first say the prototype at the KC car show 2 years ago, I was very disapointed. Now, the 05 is really growing on me. I don't care for some of the wheel designs. With a few mods to any car anything is possible. I started to experiment around with my Mazda B4000 X-tracab pickup a few years ago. I was able to knock off about 1.1 seconds in the quarter with just bolt ons and a gear change. This is a 4.0litre V6 that only has 160HP/225Torque at the crank. Motor Trend mag ran a 05 to 13.6 in the quarter. Hot Rod mag made some modes and claim to have run 12.3. That's about 1.3 seconds quicker in the quarter. I never had my truck dyno'd so I don't know where it started. All I'm saying is based on my experiance with my old truck anything is possible. Pearl02.

Wayne S · Dec 14, 2004

Pearl02 said:
Motor Trend mag ran a 05 to 13.6 in the quarter. Hot Rod mag made some modes and claim to have run 12.3. That's about 1.3 seconds quicker in the quarter. I never had my truck dyno'd so I don't know where it started. All I'm saying is based on my experiance with my old truck anything is possible. Pearl02.

The 12.3 does not impress me. I like the way the 05 looks. To me it looks way better in person then in mags, it is more rounder then I thought the car was. My neighbor down the street has a red 05 v6, very sharp looking car. I just don’t like the suspension they put in it. Then again IM looking at it from a drag racing point of few.

2005 GT 12.3 Quarter And No NOS!

Stork_

New Member

MoNsTaMaCk24

danny g

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

Stork_

New Member

Stork_

New Member

ADRENLN

Active Member

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

Sick96Stang

New Member

FalconGuy016

New Member

Stork_

New Member

Stork_

New Member

xtrm281gt

New Member

kozumasbullitt

New Member

BLUE03GT

New Member

tontot77

Do I look like a :taco: in this picture?

Wayne S

Pearl02

Member

Wayne S

Similar threads

2005 GT 12.3 Quarter And No NOS!

New Member

Straight Outta Locash

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Do I look like a :taco: in this picture?

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency