new22003 said:Just got my dec 04 C&D they gave the 05 great reviews. Ran 0-50 in 5.2 and quarter in 13.8 . You can find full scans of the article here.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=8455
tjredgt2000 said:Just kind of porky on the weight but we gotta have something to complain about! Start ripping out the sound deadener, etc.
351CJ said:Porky as compared to what?
C&D listed weights:
2003 Mach 1 MTX - 3471 lb
2003 SVT Cobra - 3680 lb
2005 GT - MTX - 3523 lb
2002 GT - ATX -3495 lb
2001 Cobra MTX - 3472 lb.
As compared to the various SN-95 Mustangs, the '05 doesn't seem all that "porky" to me. Only 52 lb more than a Mach 1
CatmanJJ said:Didn't read the review but C&D is notorious for crappy driving, as i recall they tested a 99+ GT vert to a tune of 15.1 in the 1/4 which is a joke. So if you take their 13.8 and hack a couple tenths off you should be right where this car really runs.
RandyB said:At least in this case the weight finally buys us something we desperately needed - structural rigidity/strength. I don't mind the extra weight if it helps us have a much better car, and at least the weight is distributed MUCH better than before so it's hard to just compare numbers and get the full story.
SleazyBig slim said:what is the top speed. i know its governed, but does anyone know what the top speed is?
RandyB said:At least in this case the weight finally buys us something we desperately needed - structural rigidity/strength. I don't mind the extra weight if it helps us have a much better car, and at least the weight is distributed MUCH better than before so it's hard to just compare numbers and get the full story.
SleazyBig slim said:what is the top speed. i know its governed, but does anyone know what the top speed is?
They will use whatever gear to achieve the fastest speed. in case anybody was wondering.tjredgt2000 said:Note that top speed is in 5th gear instead of 4th gear. That is usually not the case with stock 'stangs. All in all, a good review. Just kind of porky on the weight but we gotta have something to complain about! Start ripping out the sound deadener, etc.
RICKS said:I don't buy the "crappy driving" urban myth, C&D does fairly well. You may find some people running a tenth or two (or maybe 3) better, but you can always attribute it to better conditions, cooler weather, disparity between cars, and no, they don't usually speedshift as they prefer to test cars using STANDARDIZED driving methods to ensure good apples to apples comparisons. Case in point, C&D ran 12.70 @ 113 on one test, and 12.60 @ 114 in another of the 2005 Z51 Corvette. Now I'm sorry, but that is NOT notoriously crappy driving. They even managed to horsewhip a 355 h.p. '05 Carrera S to a 12.40 (from the STRONG numbers the new Porsches are running, I've got to believe that Porsche has hopped on-board the "under-promise and over-deliver" bandwagon of under-rating their horsepower figures). What most people don't understand is that the big car magazines try to test cars using driving techniques that can be easily replicated over and over on all different makes and models of cars from test to test to test, so that their results are consistent and can be compared in a standardized way. They're not like MM&FF, where they go out to the track and absolutely RAPE a car and beat it within a sliver of its life to get a fast e.t..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?