• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

2005 GT ET's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shane3232
  • Start date Start date Jan 15, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

SuperStang83

Founding Member
Mar 21, 2001
1,693
0
49
Boyertown, Pa
Jan 19, 2004
#21
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #21
My buddy Matt in his bone stock 2000GT ran a 13.8 at 100mph!

Jakob
 

SuperStang83

Founding Member
Mar 21, 2001
1,693
0
49
Boyertown, Pa
Jan 19, 2004
#22
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #22
This was at Maple Grove Raceway in Pa!

Jakob
 

BelueLX

Founding Member
Jul 10, 1999
1,195
1
0
Jan 19, 2004
#23
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #23
my friend ran a 13.85@100 bone stock. it took a 1.95 60-ft to pull that but it turned consistent 13.96s with normal (2.1-2.25) 60-fts.
My prediction:
13.60@101mph w/ 2.1 60-ft.
 

LizardKing 2002

Founding Member
Mar 30, 2002
100
0
0
Ottawa, Ontario
Jan 19, 2004
#24
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #24
351CJ said:
The best test that I have seen of a BONE STOCK Mustang GT was in 5.0 Mag.

They took a good driver and ran multiple passes with a truely BONE STOCK 2002 GT Coupe. The times they got were:

14.986 @ 94.47
14.557 @ 97.09
14.684 @ 96.42
14.450 @ 97.82
14.218 @ 98.06

Then they started modding the car: They disconnected the front sway bar, removed the spare tire & jack, removed the air intake filter housing (& silencer), pumped the front tires up to 46 PSI and iced the intake manifold:

13.960 @ 99.02
13.721 @ 101.8

So you are not going to see 13's on a bone stock 99 - 04 unless you have a big tail wind.
Click to expand...

hmmm... My 2000 GT ran a 13.663 (on video) completly stock ... including air filter and factory wheels. My 2002 GT ran a 13.77 completly stock... again factory everything. I will admit the conditions where ideal, and the track was near sea level.

I will expect low 13s out of my 05 Stang when I get it.
 

HoustonGT

Gilded Gelding
Apr 6, 2003
1,418
0
0
Houston
Jan 19, 2004
#25
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #25
Well, im going to agree with the mid 13's you guys have said. The 3.55 gears, better weight distribution, 100% increase in torque rigidity(sp? LOL), ~35rwhp/13rwtq gains over current GT's should help net alot better times. Not ot mention the 3v design, meaning the car won't run outta breath so quick and pull harder up top. 13.5 @ 101-102mph is very possible.
 

GelatiCruiser

Founding Member
Jun 7, 2002
1,054
0
0
1 Mile South of Somewhere.
Jan 19, 2004
#26
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #26
kirkyg said:
I ran a 14.0 @ 99.5 with 0 track experience first time out with my bone stock car. You can say whatever you want but my car was easily capable of a 13.95 or 13.9 + the weather was humid and not very cool.

kirkyg
Click to expand...

Not calling here or anything....just a legitimate question. If you ran a 14.0 @ 99.5, then why is your time in your sig listed as 14.2? Do you not have the slip from the 14.0 run or something?
 

blkgt714

New Member
May 3, 2003
142
0
0
LA/Orange County
Jan 19, 2004
#27
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #27
Everyone seems to know someone that has gotten their GT into the high 13's.. But an auto with mufflers welded in running a 13.7? The car gods shined on him that day. The average auto with minimal mods will not even get into the high 13's on a regular basis.

I'm guessing the new GT will run mid to high 13's.. It'll still see my Mach's tail lights for awhile
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
Central Florida
Jan 19, 2004
#28
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #28
351CJ said:
The best test that I have seen of a BONE STOCK Mustang GT was in 5.0 Mag.

They took a good driver and ran multiple passes with a truely BONE STOCK 2002 GT Coupe. The times they got were:

14.986 @ 94.47
14.557 @ 97.09
14.684 @ 96.42
14.450 @ 97.82
14.218 @ 98.06

Then they started modding the car: They disconnected the front sway bar, removed the spare tire & jack, removed the air intake filter housing (& silencer), pumped the front tires up to 46 PSI and iced the intake manifold:

13.960 @ 99.02
13.721 @ 101.8

So you are not going to see 13's on a bone stock 99 - 04 unless you have a big tail wind.
Click to expand...

You're retarded for saying "So you are not going to see 13's on a bone stock 99 - 04 unless you have a big tail wind." Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been done or isn't done all the time. My bone stock 03 GT with not a single mod (even had the original paper air filter and silencer in place) ran 13.99@99.74. This is without even removing the spare or jack. The only difference between showroom stock was an aftermarket CD/MP3/DVD player in place of the stock CD player. My current best time in my sig was done with only a BBK o/r X pipe. I've got slips to back up my times.

I predict that the 05 GT is capable of mid 13's. There are plenty of current GT's with 255rwhp (300fwhp) running low 13's. Take away the sticky tires and add a bit of weight and it's mid 13's. That's my prediction.
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
Central Florida
Jan 19, 2004
#29
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #29
shane3232 said:
I am about as big of a mustang supporter as there is, and as much as i want to believe that the 99-04 gts run a 13.9 or better 1/4 mile, i just dont think its true, not for a bone stock gt anyway. I have heard rumors of this, but ive never seen any proof of it. But if u have some real #'s i'd love to see them being i have 01 gt vert. Also the Mach's with the same gear ratios and nearly the same hp/tq as the 05's only run 13.4 stock and i have a feeling that their hp/tp curve is much more level than the 05's will be so i dont think that the 05's can match that.
Click to expand...

See sig. Best stock (BONE STOCK) was 13.99@99.7 with a 2.1 60 ft. If you're interested in seeing the slips, let me know. I'll email them when I get home tonight. I've got the 13.90 slip with just BBK o/r X in my wallet. I'll email it to you right now if you want proof. In my opinion, there's no excuse for a 99-04 GT 5 speed coupe to not run high 13's or very low 14's. If you can't do it, it's cause you either can't drive, the track sucks, or the weather/altitude sucks.
 

ttown

Founding Member
May 30, 2002
815
0
0
Oklahoma
Jan 19, 2004
#30
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #30
A lot of the mustangs I've seen run sub 14's are near sea level. You'll have a hard time running sub 14's in many areas in the US, even with great weather.
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
Central Florida
Jan 19, 2004
#31
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #31
ttown said:
A lot of the mustangs I've seen run sub 14's are near sea level. You'll have a hard time running sub 14's in many areas in the US, even with great weather.
Click to expand...

No kidding Sherlock. When comparing times from different parts of the country, it's more accurate to use corrected times. Fortunatly, the track I go to is at 66 ft and the DA lately has been pretty close to that.
 

ttown

Founding Member
May 30, 2002
815
0
0
Oklahoma
Jan 19, 2004
#32
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #32
StngStr said:
No kidding Sherlock. When comparing times from different parts of the country, it's more accurate to use corrected times. Fortunatly, the track I go to is at 66 ft and the DA lately has been pretty close to that.
Click to expand...

Well come to my world friend and you won't have those cherry time. Many on this board don't consider what location a Mag or person is in when they report times. Just temp and hum.

Sound like your just being a smart A$$
 

kirkyg

Founding Member
Jun 14, 2002
3,568
1
56
Beaumont, TX
Jan 19, 2004
#33
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #33
GelatiCruiser said:
Not calling here or anything....just a legitimate question. If you ran a 14.0 @ 99.5, then why is your time in your sig listed as 14.2? Do you not have the slip from the 14.0 run or something?
Click to expand...

The time in my sig is 1 4 . 0 2

not 1 4 . 2 0

I have a friend that has an auto GT. he was running 13.9's with catback and midpipe...auto's are not far behind a perfectly driven stick shift...and are much more consitant (although i'll never own one).

kirkyg

p.s. and if you need proof of course i'll scan the slip when i get home if you dont believe me.
 

big o car 4.6

Founding Member
Jan 3, 2002
377
0
0
dallas
Jan 19, 2004
#34
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #34
I drove my friends BONE STOCK 03 and got a 13.9 at the track the 05 gt should be able to do better than that.
 

blkgt714

New Member
May 3, 2003
142
0
0
LA/Orange County
Jan 19, 2004
#35
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #35
StngStr said:
No kidding Sherlock. When comparing times from different parts of the country, it's more accurate to use corrected times. Fortunatly, the track I go to is at 66 ft and the DA lately has been pretty close to that.
Click to expand...

Me personally, I don't really put much weight on corrected times.. Course thats coming from someone thats near sea level.. Heh..

In all the 99+ GT's I've seen run, and that has been many.. Perhaps 10-15% run get that sub 14 time stock or mildly modded. It can be done, but its no where near the norm at all.
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
Central Florida
Jan 19, 2004
#36
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #36
ttown said:
Well come to my world friend and you won't have those cherry time. Many on this board don't consider what location a Mag or person is in when they report times. Just temp and hum.

Sound like your just being a smart A$$
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to introduce a little reality to the conversation. My first time at the track I ran a 14.1@99mph. That was in September with 78% humidity and 77 degrees. The Density Altitude was over 1500 feet. That run corrected to a 13.95@100.59. So, even in Oklahoma it would have been a 14.0 run corrected to just over 800 ft (Tulsa). Not only that, but a 2.0 60 ft time would have been another .1 faster. It just ticks me off seeing guys say that 99-04 GT's CAN'T run high 13's. It seems as if there are a lot of skeptics out there. Just because you haven't personally seen it, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
Central Florida
Jan 19, 2004
#37
  • Jan 19, 2004
  • #37
blkgt714 said:
Me personally, I don't really put much weight on corrected times.. Course thats coming from someone thats near sea level.. Heh..

In all the 99+ GT's I've seen run, and that has been many.. Perhaps 10-15% run get that sub 14 time stock or mildly modded. It can be done, but its no where near the norm at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was just pointing out the correction factor because someone in denver running mid 14's is every bit as fast as me here at sea level running high 13's. So, depending on where the magazine test was performed, it may not reflect the true capabilities of the car. When comparing runs from different locations, if we use the corrected run it will be more accurate. Know what I mean?

At any rate, MY 2003 GT has run high 13's stock.
 
A

awalbert88

Founding Member
Aug 5, 2001
599
1
0
Lancaster, PA
Jan 20, 2004
#38
  • Jan 20, 2004
  • #38
13.1 with a real driver. Note that this is faster than magazine drivers are getting with the 03 Cobra, so expect magazine times to be in the high 13's. If you want real times, check with MM&FF.

Some of those mags compare the STI and SVT on the 1/4 mile, and guess what? Anybody can launch an STI down the 1/4 - rev it to redline and dump the clutch. Launching a stock RWD V8 is much harder, because unlike the AWD STI, you're going to have wheel spin. It actually takes skill to launch correctly, so magazines will generally get poor times.

I figure this car will be just as fast as, if not slightly faster than, the 03/04 Mach 1.
 

GelatiCruiser

Founding Member
Jun 7, 2002
1,054
0
0
1 Mile South of Somewhere.
Jan 20, 2004
#39
  • Jan 20, 2004
  • #39
kirkyg said:
The time in my sig is 1 4 . 0 2
not 1 4 . 2 0
p.s. and if you need proof of course i'll scan the slip when i get home if you dont believe me.
Click to expand...

My faux pas Kirky....I misread it. Sorry about that. Must be that rabid dyslexia kicking in.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

9
Will I feel a difference
  • 90Stanger302
  • Mar 12, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
230
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Apr 13, 2026
Noobz347
G
2006 Mustang GT o2 Sensor Wiring Issue Car Bogging/Choking
  • GCantero93
  • Sep 5, 2025
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech
Replies
4
Views
897
2005 - 2009 Specific Tech Sep 6, 2025
Noobz347
F
2004 Mustang GT – Fuel Pump Not Priming
  • Fayio
  • Apr 22, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
203
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Apr 27, 2026
n0v8or
N
6
2010 V6 Sees differently than GT?
  • 6t9Mach1
  • Mar 31, 2026
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
156
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech Apr 1, 2026
6t9Mach1
6
A
Help ID - Turbo GT, SVO differences
  • aldoelmalo
  • Jun 2, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
58
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 2, 2026
aldoelmalo
A
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?