• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

Ford GT dyno numbers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avenger
  • Start date Start date Mar 9, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
T

tangerine

Member
Apr 6, 2003
555
0
16
millen, ga
Mar 9, 2004
#41
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #41
My vote is for the gt. From everything I have read the gt isn't going for the market of small stuff like the viper and the corvette. Its main contender is the ferrari enzo and other high dollar cars. The gt is capable of a lot more stuff than the viper or vette is. you put a blower on either one of the 2 and before to long you are going to have to do motor work because of a piston or rod or something. IMO it is the best setup because you not only have a twin screw blower but you also have a built motor, tranny, and rearend at the same time. Also the suspension is completely worked out also. I personally think it is worth 150 grand.
 

DBMSTNG

I fantasize about it being BIG!
Founding Member
Apr 23, 2002
2,120
0
56
not quite here
Mar 9, 2004
#42
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #42
ScrewDrvr said:
even with a 128mph trap, that still doesnt add up to 565rwhp. Ive seen MANY LS1's, mustangs, and Supras with ~500rwhp trap 124-128mph and they wiegh ~3700+ with driver and other equipment in the car.
Click to expand...


what does the Enzo trap at? it should have around 565rwhp (660 flywheel) and weighs just slightly less than the GT. so if the reported GT rwhp is correct, then they both should trap about the same, right?

the only info i have on the Enzo is from july 03 C&D and the estimated a 11.2@136mph, but they were going slightly downhill and stopped at 954ft and 120mph.
 
E

el_kid_1

New Member
Oct 30, 2003
738
0
0
Puerto Rico
Mar 9, 2004
#43
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #43
WOW! I want one too...that reminds me that I need to play the lottery
 

'01 Steed

Founding Member
Aug 2, 2002
482
0
16
Michigan
Mar 9, 2004
#44
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #44
ScrewDrvr said:
...it doesnt matter if they spun and got a 10 second 60' time, trap speeds tell the cars HP. ...[/QOUTE]
Click to expand...
ScrewDrvr said:
You're making my point for me. The truth is quite the inverse...the GT has very low 60 ft times. It hooks up, therefore, the trap speeds are lower...it doesn't need to make up time.

ScrewDrvr said:
...maybe Ford upped the hp recently, but the car MT tested DID not make the same hp. And o yeah, the Viper competes pretty damn well with the Ford GT in every category. Except that 60-70k price differnce......[/QOUTE]
Click to expand...
ScrewDrvr said:
You haven't driven either vehicle, and neither have I. The difference is, I'm not bashing the GT. Your rice-burnin' a$$ is! I think there's a Tornado thread on www.rice-r-us.com that's begging your attention.

BTW, Thanks for correcting your sig.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 

project91

New Member
Mar 6, 2004
101
1
0
Mar 9, 2004
#45
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #45
arent the drivers at Motortrend the same ones that ran a 13.3 with an 03 cobra.
 

'01 Steed

Founding Member
Aug 2, 2002
482
0
16
Michigan
Mar 9, 2004
#46
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #46
project91 said:
arent the drivers at Motortrend the same ones that ran a 13.3 with an 03 cobra.
Click to expand...

Yep. None of them know how to drive in a straight line. Just like the Stage III Roush (shameless plug)...These guys reported a 13.7.....WTF??? Our calibration Manager ran a 12.7 with a 2 ton floor jack in the trunk! That's a fact!
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
Mar 9, 2004
#47
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #47
project91 said:
arent the drivers at Motortrend the same ones that ran a 13.3 with an 03 cobra.
Click to expand...
a magazine owned by motortrend i think

but either way, it was crappy driver vs crappy driver since both the viper and gt were tested by MT
 

project91

New Member
Mar 6, 2004
101
1
0
Mar 9, 2004
#48
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #48
not to be going off topic but MM&FF ran 14.095 @ 96.64 with the 40TH ANN. GT. (Automatic).
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
Mar 9, 2004
#49
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #49
project91 said:
not to be going off topic but MM&FF ran 14.095 @ 96.64 with the 40TH ANN. GT. (Automatic).
Click to expand...
MM&FF also ran a 13.90 @ 98.77 with 01 GT 5 spd.
http://musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0205mmff_shootout/
 

Avenger

New Member
Feb 19, 2002
1,030
0
0
QC
Mar 9, 2004
#50
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #50
JonJon said:
so the viper is a better braking vehicle
what's your point
Click to expand...

My point is that the brakes aren't better on the Viper, the tires are.
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
Mar 9, 2004
#51
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #51
Avenger said:
My point is that the brakes aren't better on the Viper, the tires are.
Click to expand...
tires are no good without good brakes
 

ScrewDrvr

Founding Member
Oct 21, 2002
58
0
0
Earth
Mar 9, 2004
#52
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #52
You're making my point for me. The truth is quite the inverse...the GT has very low 60 ft times. It hooks up, therefore, the trap speeds are lower...it doesn't need to make up time.

It doesnt matter if it hooked good. Its not gonna take away 10mph in the 1/4 mile

You haven't driven either vehicle, and neither have I. The difference is, I'm not bashing the GT. Your rice-burnin' a$$ is! I think there's a Tornado thread on www.rice-r-us.com that's begging your attention.

yep, i have never driven either, nor probably ever will. but the testers have, and they reported the numbers. And when did I bash the GT again? And since you like the personal attacks, I think they are having a mullet reunion over at trailor-trash.com , im sure they would love you there.

 

Avenger

New Member
Feb 19, 2002
1,030
0
0
QC
Mar 10, 2004
#53
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #53
JonJon said:
tires are no good without good brakes
Click to expand...

Breaking news, any damn brakes can lock the wheels up, the limiting factor of stopping distance is the tire, not the brakes. Bigger brakes only help dealing with the heat, they don't improve your stopping distance. Well, they do improve slightly but simply because they get to the point of locking up the wheels faster than smaller brakes.

Here's some reading for anyone interested

http://www.stoptech.com/technical/
 
C

CottonBurnerz

Banned
May 10, 2003
1,554
0
0
Drink and Drive = Teh Lose
Mar 10, 2004
#54
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #54
whatabuttahtorque?
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
Mar 10, 2004
#55
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #55
Avenger said:
Breaking news, any damn brakes can lock the wheels up, the limiting factor of stopping distance is the tire, not the brakes. Bigger brakes only help dealing with the heat, they don't improve your stopping distance. Well, they do improve slightly but simply because they get to the point of locking up the wheels faster than smaller brakes.

Here's some reading for anyone interested

http://www.stoptech.com/technical/
Click to expand...
they have to be matched correctly, what good are 275 tires with 9 inch rotors?
Ford chose the 245 for ride comfort?

in the end, which brakes faster? the viper. not dodge's fault ford put on smaller tires.
 

Avenger

New Member
Feb 19, 2002
1,030
0
0
QC
Mar 10, 2004
#56
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #56
JonJon said:
they have to be matched correctly, what good are 275 tires with 9 inch rotors?
Ford chose the 245 for ride comfort?

in the end, which brakes faster? the viper. not dodge's fault ford put on smaller tires.
Click to expand...

Agreed the brakes must be decent in the first place to lock the wheels up but on today's cars, it's usually not a concern. Well, maybe there would be a problem if I tried to lock some 275 with my Festiva but...

The Viper might brake faster but it's actually hard to tell since they didn't even run both tests on the same surface. Both cars got 14" ventilated front brakes. The Viper has slighty bigger rears brakes but I can't see that making a difference. In fact, it adds unsrung weight which isn't a good thing for the suspension. Even if, after all, the Viper has a shorter stopping distance than the GT, it will only be due to its wider tires. That's been my point since the beginning, I never said the Viper can't outbrake the GT

For the record, I like both cars
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
Mar 10, 2004
#57
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #57
Avenger said:
Agreed the brakes must be decent in the first place to lock the wheels up but on today's cars, it's usually not a concern. Well, maybe there would be a problem if I tried to lock some 275 with my Festiva but...

The Viper might brake faster but it's actually hard to tell since they didn't even run both tests on the same surface. Both cars got 14" ventilated front brakes. The Viper has slighty bigger rears brakes but I can't see that making a difference. In fact, it adds unsrung weight which isn't a good thing for the suspension. Even if, after all, the Viper has a shorter stopping distance than the GT, it will only be due to its wider tires. That's been my point since the beginning, I never said the Viper can't outbrake the GT

For the record, I like both cars
Click to expand...
yeah, kinda sketchy that they did do it on different surfaces
maybe Ford will offer a race package with bigger tires and weight reduction and stuff? that'd be cool, except the $160k price tag

I love the GT
 

'01 Steed

Founding Member
Aug 2, 2002
482
0
16
Michigan
Mar 10, 2004
#58
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #58
ScrewDrvr said:
...And since you like the personal attacks, I think they are having a mullet reunion over at trailor-trash.com , im sure they would love you there...
Click to expand...

Mullet????? Trailor trash???? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Anyhow, I guess there will always be people who refuse to see things for what they are. The Ford GT is in fact the best supercar out there for the money.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electrical need help with a part number
  • alutwon
  • Jan 27, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
0
Views
136
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 27, 2026
alutwon
M
My numbers sound right?
  • MiltP
  • Feb 25, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
28
Views
761
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 2, 2026
MiltP
M
M
Alternator bolt size
  • Millerj12
  • Jan 15, 2026
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Replies
1
Views
292
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech Jan 17, 2026
Noobz347
B
WTB/Trade 1993 Ford Mustang GT
  • Bimm3rB0i
  • Nov 1, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
0
Views
309
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Nov 1, 2025
Bimm3rB0i
B
B
manual swap
  • brockb
  • Feb 9, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
3
Views
230
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Feb 24, 2026
squeak93
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang 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?