Motortrend just tested the NA 2010 Mustang and got a 13.7

[fox1x]

I just went to Motortrends website and they tested the NA Stang with the 3.31's and got a 0-60 of 5.3 and a quarter mile of 13.7...

( 2010 Ford Mustang GT - First Drive and exclusive photos of the Ford Mustang GT - Motor Trend )

 

[allcarfan]

.6 slower than the new camaro 0-60 and the V6 has 90hp less than that of the new Chevy.

...and the prices are the same

Of course, the optional 3.73 rear in the stang could have been added to the mix. That may have been a different ball game.

 

[fox1x]

I'm curious about the 400 HP supercharged 2010 stang with factory 3.73's. ..*Should* be in the high 12's. Even then, won't be long before people are cranking up the boost..

 

[allcarfan]

I'm curious about the 400 HP supercharged 2010 stang with factory 3.73's. ..*Should* be in the high 12's. Even then, won't be long before people are cranking up the boost..

The only problem with that is price...

premium GT...$32k
3.73 rear end option....$???
Supercharger....more than likely a $6k option

So $40k for a single option supercharged GT

 

[85 Coupe 5.0]

allcar is right.

Ford needs to get their V-8's up to snuff with the other manufacturers as far as power. It's going to be pretty sad when the V-6 Camaro beats a V-8 GT.

I'm a former/current Ford buff gone darkside. I absolutely LOVE the new Mustangs, personally I liked owning my older stang as far as interior looks/ride compared to my Z, but the performance wasn't there.

I'll keep waiting patiently till Ford gets their EcoBoost's out or developes the Boss line of V-8s for us.

 

[Nitrous03GT]

something to keep in mind..the drivers those guys use are hardly professional, many, many regular weekend racers get new cars and click off way faster times than the magazine guys do, i wont be suprised if i see guys posting 13.10's in the new GT's bone stock

and dont be so jumipty about ford getting up to snuff with HP numbers...those cars make 400+hp because they are gaint heavy land yachts that need that much to make them move, its pretty pathetic that a charger srt has 425hp and runs the same "magazine" time as a car with 110 less HP...not to mention that i was pulling 13.60's in my GT with a catback and intake mods, "faster" times than a car with 175 more hp....

you're comparing an apple to an orange, dont just look at the HP number and assume that the car is better because it makes more... despite what the few of us want, the mainstream average joe who buys these cars doesnt really know that much about them, case in point- the catfish camaros...sure they were faster and made more power, but ultimately the mustang CRUSHED them into failure with style and offering a car that people wanted.

 

[85 Coupe 5.0]

Very True. The Mustang is definately a good seller, and most people want a Mustang because of it's name/history.

The only reason I own an F-body GM is for the performance.

I'm all about 1/4 time. I see no point in dumping 4K into a charger setup and exceeding the cost of buying a GM F-body that can do the same HP and 1/4 time N/A. Although it has it drawbacks, I still have the crappy 7.5" rear

But, on the flip side, it's fun to beat on new cars with technology that's 10 years old, and a car that's been out of production since '02.

 

[Notchbck93]

something to keep in mind..the drivers those guys use are hardly professional, many, many regular weekend racers get new cars and click off way faster times than the magazine guys do, i wont be suprised if i see guys posting 13.10's in the new GT's bone stock

and dont be so jumipty about ford getting up to snuff with HP numbers...those cars make 400+hp because they are gaint heavy land yachts that need that much to make them move, its pretty pathetic that a charger srt has 425hp and runs the same "magazine" time as a car with 110 less HP...not to mention that i was pulling 13.60's in my GT with a catback and intake mods, "faster" times than a car with 175 more hp....

you're comparing an apple to an orange, dont just look at the HP number and assume that the car is better because it makes more... despite what the few of us want, the mainstream average joe who buys these cars doesnt really know that much about them, case in point- the catfish camaros...sure they were faster and made more power, but ultimately the mustang CRUSHED them into failure with style and offering a car that people wanted.

There's a lot more magazine racers these days. Ford has already proven that raw-power alone doesn't keep your product line alive and a cult following isn't enough to support the cause.

 

[myponyrocks]

I'm waiting for the GM guys to have threads like...

"I have 100 hp more, why did I only beat that Mustang by 1/10th?"

etc...

No matter what side of the bleachers we sit in, I think lately we're all pessimistic when it comes to what our "team" gives us.

 

[85 Coupe 5.0]

I'm not big on magazine tests. Usually are biased, and the cars are tested with the best possible conditions at near or below sea level altitude.

Case in point, here's a vid of me vs. an '05 GT showroom stock. The driver owns a 5.0 and races bracket frequently with a 5 spd. Granted I slept at the light, it's was over by the 1/8th. This was before I had the cam and only trapped 106-108. This is the 4th GT i've seen out all year, and have yet to see a stock one run better than 14.5 at our altitude. (please excuse the vid, it's shot at night)

YouTube - 05gtvscamaro

Here's a better one. Our friend's '86 GMC pickup with a little 5.3L that has a cam, stall and gears. 13.4@98 was the best for the night. Also, A highly modded GT500 VS. our friend's bone stock C6 Vette. The GT500 has an aftermarket charger, intercooler and tuning.

YouTube - jays vette and truck

And finally, Jay's truck VS. an '03 bone stock cobra.

YouTube - Jay Sammy Playday race 08

And for those of you asking about my car, here's some footage of it. All these vids are without the cam installed.

YouTube - Alan's Sammy Playday

Timeslips are posted on my MySpace page.

 

[Stangninjak]

Heh your car could be modded for days, but a bad driver = bad driver. Gt500 had a horrid launch, and piss poor shifting. You see it in the vid.

The Vett driver can drive.

 

[Houston94vert]

Motortrend has always produced terrible 1/4 mile times and performance reviews for everything but GM products. LOL.

 

[85 Coupe 5.0]

Heh your car could be modded for days, but a bad driver = bad driver. Gt500 had a horrid launch, and piss poor shifting. You see it in the vid.

The Vett driver can drive.

The Vette is an auto, and it's not a Z06. Bone stock. Also, the GT500 couldn't run him down, only trapped 113 or so to Jay's 114. Both were on street tires. With his exhaust modded, and a hot computer tune from us, plus some stickies we hope for high 11's.

We're friends with the GT500 guy, and yea, he needs tires. But, if the MPH isn't there he'll never catch the 'Vette, so it has to happen in the 60'. The 500 may have 500hp stock, but it weighs in at 3900 lbs sans driver. The 'Vette is 3200 with driver and has an underrated 430HP. The price tag minus the aftermarket stuff on the 500 is nearly identical.

As far as my car, it ran 13.8@102 bone stock with a 3620lb race weight with my big ass in it. at a corrected D/A of 3400ft. In the vids, all I have is a cutout, lid, Tune, K&N and gutted cats. Stock 245/50R16 radials, and best of all, 2.73 gears out back cutting a 1.9 - 2.0 60'. I've since added the 224R cam and working on a Yank 4K stall, 3.73's and some M/T E.T. Streets. Hoping for high 11's, till I blow my junk 7.5" rear.

These are just my experiences, nothing else. I've owned a modded 5.0 and 4.6, but could never produce a low 13 sec slip with either of them. Both had more mods than my Camaro.



Edited to correct some punctuation.

 

[JohnnyGMachine]

something to keep in mind..the drivers those guys use are hardly professional, many, many regular weekend racers get new cars and click off way faster times than the magazine guys do, i wont be suprised if i see guys posting 13.10's in the new GT's bone stock

and dont be so jumipty about ford getting up to snuff with HP numbers...those cars make 400+hp because they are gaint heavy land yachts that need that much to make them move, its pretty pathetic that a charger srt has 425hp and runs the same "magazine" time as a car with 110 less HP...not to mention that i was pulling 13.60's in my GT with a catback and intake mods, "faster" times than a car with 175 more hp....

you're comparing an apple to an orange, dont just look at the HP number and assume that the car is better because it makes more... despite what the few of us want, the mainstream average joe who buys these cars doesnt really know that much about them, case in point- the catfish camaros...sure they were faster and made more power, but ultimately the mustang CRUSHED them into failure with style and offering a car that people wanted.

You said everything I would've said. The Mustang outsold the Camaro and Trans Am combined and the F-bodies were faster than the Mustang. Then the Camaro was put to rest after 2002 until now. Yeah 1/4 mile time are important to us freaks but remember that 50% of Mustang sales are V6s sold to women who like the sportiness of the Mustang and could care less about 60 ft. times getting to the nail salon.

I was talking to Evan Smith from Muscle Mustangs about the horsepower...and he said it right - The lower horsepower numbers won't matter, people will modify their Mustangs anyways.... - He's right, we're gonna build it our way anyways. I don't know anybody that has left their stang stock except one buddy of mine who has an all original 1993 Cobra, teal, sunroof, and black cloth with 39,000 miles on it.

 

[Stangninjak]

The Vette is an auto, and it's not a Z06. Bone stock. Also, the GT500 couldn't run him down, only trapped 113 or so to Jay's 114. Both were on street tires. With his exhaust modded, and a hot computer tune from us, plus some stickies we hope for high 11's.

We're friends with the GT500 guy, and yea, he needs tires. But, if the MPH isn't there he'll never catch the 'Vette, so it has to happen in the 60'. The 500 may have 500hp stock, but it weighs in at 3900 lbs sans driver. The 'Vette is 3200 with driver and has an underrated 430HP. The price tag minus the aftermarket stuff on the 500 is nearly identical.

As far as my car, it ran 13.8@102 bone stock with a 3620lb race weight with my big ass in it. at a corrected D/A of 3400ft. In the vids, all I have is a cutout, lid, Tune, K&N and gutted cats. Stock 245/50R16 radials, and best of all, 2.73 gears out back cutting a 1.9 - 2.0 60'. I've since added the 224R cam and working on a Yank 4K stall, 3.73's and some M/T E.T. Streets. Hoping for high 11's, till I blow my junk 7.5" rear.

These are just my experiences, nothing else. I've owned a modded 5.0 and 4.6, but could never produce a low 13 sec slip with either of them. Both had more mods than my Camaro.



Edited to correct some punctuation.

Camero's are good cars..My bud has a "z" version, and he destroys people. (auto and shot of the juice) he aslo has a very nice suspension on it. runs 11's all day long. In my 03 terminator, puller, exhaust(cat back) and chip, I ran what the vet was running. I was easily running 12.1~12.4. I probably could have gone faster, as my traps were 115~117. I was to scared to break the IRS out back.

As I said before, the GT500 driver just does not seem to be a good driver in the vid. I have watched it a couple of more times and I see the bog on the shifts he's doing. Also, weight to power plays a part here. Yes the gt 500 is rated 500 HP, but not at the wheels. In 1/4 its about what you can put to the concrete and go with, not what's at the fly. Hell you can 600 HP, and if you cannot put it down and use it correctly, your not going anywhere.