Not enough power... In 2005

[willy_sc5.0]

What is all this BS about the EVO having better handling & braking than the GT . . . who cares!
The GT 05 is going smoke your ass in straight line acceleration, which accounts for 99% of the street/track racing. When was the last time you heard somebody saying " i was smoking this car until he pass me on a curve/ outbrake me." The only reason to choose a evo/sti over a 05 GT, is if autocroxing is you thing or if you deal with snowy winters.

 

[Michael Yount]

willy - have you spent much time on a road course? Most passing is done under braking - not with the gas pedal. And based on all the numbers I've seen - let's see - the evo runs anywhere from low to mid 13's, weighs about 3200 lbs. and has around 280HP; next year's will probably have 300HP. The 05GT w/300HP and weighing about 3600 lbs, is gonna have about that same acceleration - maybe a bit slower. Not sure how you conclude that it's going to 'smoke you ass in straight line acceleration'. Perhaps you know something about physics that we don't. You are right about autocross and low traction performance - the evo wins that too.

 

[jadesville]

willy - have you spent much time on a road course? Most passing is done under braking - not with the gas pedal. And based on all the numbers I've seen - let's see - the evo runs anywhere from low to mid 13's, weighs about 3200 lbs. and has around 280HP; next year's will probably have 300HP. The 05GT w/300HP and weighing about 3600 lbs, is gonna have about that same acceleration - maybe a bit slower. Not sure how you conclude that it's going to 'smoke you ass in straight line acceleration'. Perhaps you know something about physics that we don't. You are right about autocross and low traction performance - the evo wins that too.

It weighs 3600? and it has a slower acceleration?

 

[TomServo92]

willy - have you spent much time on a road course? Most passing is done under braking - not with the gas pedal. And based on all the numbers I've seen - let's see - the evo runs anywhere from low to mid 13's, weighs about 3200 lbs. and has around 280HP; next year's will probably have 300HP. The 05GT w/300HP and weighing about 3600 lbs, is gonna have about that same acceleration - maybe a bit slower. Not sure how you conclude that it's going to 'smoke you ass in straight line acceleration'. Perhaps you know something about physics that we don't. You are right about autocross and low traction performance - the evo wins that too.

And from what I've read, everyone that autocrosses them ends having to have some type of major repair done to them. THAT'S why Mitsu is being such a hard-ass about warranties.

 

[mball]

The GT 05 is going smoke your ass in straight line acceleration

I'll personally buy your 05 GT if you think its going to run low 13's stock and beat an Evo. Racing quarter miles is for amatuer teenaged drivers who can't actually RACE. I was over quarter mile races at 20, why dont you try racing a road course with the big boys? or better yet, come out here to Cali and try the new style of racing, Canyon racing. 3 miles of twisting, turning roads in the hills where you actually need alot of SKILL to race, insted of just mashing the gas pedal and running in a straight line.

 

[Michael Yount]

The 05 has a SIX inch longer wheel base than the current model - it's definitely gonna be noticeably heavier than the current model; and the current model is no lightweight.

 

[willy_sc5.0]

willy - have you spent much time on a road course? Most passing is done under braking - not with the gas pedal. And based on all the numbers I've seen - let's see - the evo runs anywhere from low to mid 13's, weighs about 3200 lbs. and has around 280HP; next year's will probably have 300HP. The 05GT w/300HP and weighing about 3600 lbs, is gonna have about that same acceleration - maybe a bit slower. Not sure how you conclude that it's going to 'smoke you ass in straight line acceleration'. Perhaps you know something about physics that we don't. You are right about autocross and low traction performance - the evo wins that too.

Read my post again and you'll notice that I specified street/track (as in 1/4 track). I also agreed than an evo/sti are a great choice for autocrox/roadcourse. The stock evos at my local track only manage to run high 13's (100% stock) with an experienced drivers @ speeds below 100mph which is pretty weak IMHO, specially with all the ricer hype around them. I conclude that the GT05 is going to be very close in acc. to the Mach 1 which runs low 13's @ 104+ with an experienced driver. The GT weight aprox. 50lbs more than the mach 1, has about same HP, but the 05 will have a better weight distribution and better suspension/chassis to ground those 300HP/315TQ which most likely are underrated.

 

[willy_sc5.0]

or better yet, come out here to Cali and try the new style of racing, Canyon racing. 3 miles of twisting, turning roads in the hills where you actually need alot of SKILL to race, insted of just mashing the gas pedal and running in a straight line.

Sounds like very responsible and safe type of racing for a mature big boy like you.

 

[kirkyg]

The 05 has a SIX inch longer wheel base than the current model - it's definitely gonna be noticeably heavier than the current model; and the current model is no lightweight.

Nope curb weight will be within 75 pounds of the current mustang.

kirkyg

 

[kirkyg]

Sounds like very responsible and safe type of racing for a mature big boy like you.

LOL yea thats a great way to get yourself killed.

kirkyg

 

[Michael Yount]

willy - let's see - 13 sec. 1/4 mile times from a 275HP 4 cyl. 4 dr. sedan (I've seen evo's run low 13's; I've seen Mach 1's run high 13's -- there's a wide performance envelope here) - and that's pretty weak in your opinion. And similar 1/4 mile times from a 300HP V-8 powered 'sports coupe' that doesn't handle or stop as well, and has less utility. I'd say your prejudices are showing through.

It's ok to like/prefer the Stang - just go ahead and say that. But the facts don't support the notion that it performs much, if at all, better than a number of the other cars mentioned. It MAY (although in stock form I doubt it) accelerate better. But even that is a function of a skilled driver. A few too many revs and the rear tires of the Stang go up in smoke, while the awd cars simply motor away from you - even the Subie xt station wagons. Yup - above 110 you'll reel them back in, but let's face it, on the street that's not gonna happen very often. And in the quarter mile, it's all over by then.

 

[kirkyg]

willy - let's see - 13 sec. 1/4 mile times from a 275HP 4 cyl. 4 dr. sedan (I've seen evo's run low 13's; I've seen Mach 1's run high 13's -- there's a wide performance envelope here) - and that's pretty weak in your opinion. And similar 1/4 mile times from a 300HP V-8 powered 'sports coupe' that doesn't handle or stop as well, and has less utility. I'd say your prejudices are showing through.

It's ok to like/prefer the Stang - just go ahead and say that. But the facts don't support the notion that it performs much, if at all, better than a number of the other cars mentioned. It MAY (although in stock form I doubt it) accelerate better. But even that is a function of a skilled driver. A few too many revs and the rear tires of the Stang go up in smoke, while the awd cars simply motor away from you - even the Subie xt station wagons. Yup - above 110 you'll reel them back in, but let's face it, on the street that's not gonna happen very often. And in the quarter mile, it's all over by then.

Perhaps you just dont understand rwd v8 american muscle lovers.

1) its nostalgia
2) its sound ( you will NEVER get with a 4 banger)
3) its POTENTIAL power (not necessarily comparable to a high boost 4 cylinder built for boost).
4) its about styling (which the evo has little to offer here)
5) its about price (an evo is WAY overpriced...if it was only 4-5 grand over a mach or GT then we could talk).

kirkyg

p.s. mach 1's are much much quicker than high 13's ... if you had driven one yourself you would know.

 

[TomServo92]

The 05 has a SIX inch longer wheel base than the current model - it's definitely gonna be noticeably heavier than the current model; and the current model is no lightweight.

Just because the wheelbase is longer doesn't mean the overall length is longer numb-nuts. The '05 has noticably less overhang front and rear than the previous model and the weights are very close.

 

[TomServo92]

willy - let's see - 13 sec. 1/4 mile times from a 275HP 4 cyl. 4 dr. sedan (I've seen evo's run low 13's; I've seen Mach 1's run high 13's -- there's a wide performance envelope here) - and that's pretty weak in your opinion. And similar 1/4 mile times from a 300HP V-8 powered 'sports coupe' that doesn't handle or stop as well, and has less utility. I'd say your prejudices are showing through.

It's ok to like/prefer the Stang - just go ahead and say that. But the facts don't support the notion that it performs much, if at all, better than a number of the other cars mentioned. It MAY (although in stock form I doubt it) accelerate better. But even that is a function of a skilled driver. A few too many revs and the rear tires of the Stang go up in smoke, while the awd cars simply motor away from you - even the Subie xt station wagons. Yup - above 110 you'll reel them back in, but let's face it, on the street that's not gonna happen very often. And in the quarter mile, it's all over by then.

Here's a quote from earlier in this very thread:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0310_frst2_mach1/index.html

"This Mach 1's acceleration off the line is tricky, but resulted in a big-block-humbling 13.88 at 101.91. We recently tested a Mach 1 five-speed and ran a 13.2 at 106.7."

13.2 sounds like a low 13 to me (and that's from MT!). The 13.88 was with an automatic!

 

[SVTdriver]

willy - let's see - 13 sec. 1/4 mile times from a 275HP 4 cyl. 4 dr. sedan (I've seen evo's run low 13's; I've seen Mach 1's run high 13's -- there's a wide performance envelope here) - and that's pretty weak in your opinion. And similar 1/4 mile times from a 300HP V-8 powered 'sports coupe' that doesn't handle or stop as well, and has less utility. I'd say your prejudices are showing through.

It's ok to like/prefer the Stang - just go ahead and say that. But the facts don't support the notion that it performs much, if at all, better than a number of the other cars mentioned. It MAY (although in stock form I doubt it) accelerate better. But even that is a function of a skilled driver. A few too many revs and the rear tires of the Stang go up in smoke, while the awd cars simply motor away from you - even the Subie xt station wagons. Yup - above 110 you'll reel them back in, but let's face it, on the street that's not gonna happen very often. And in the quarter mile, it's all over by then.

And in one of your last posts. Your prejudice really shows. You have yet to get ANY real hard info on the 05's capabilities. How do you know how well the 05 will handle? How long does it take to stop from 60mph? As for utility it all depends on what you want and need the car for. Which is highly subjective. I don't need a 4 seater like the EVO. I don't have passengers enough to warrant the extra price tag. My trunk holds all the stuff I need for a weekend getaway or most any other road trip I care to take. But it may not do the same for you. As for reeling them in at 110mph. If you get there faster. Then somewhere before that speed you are going to be reeling them in. Yes acceleration is to some extent a function of skilled driving. Or getting enough practice in to know when your tires will lose traction.

 

[Michael Yount]

Like I alluded to earlier guys - you can find supporting magazine tests all the way from low 13's to low 14's on both cars. The tires on the test vehicles, the surface where they were tested and ambient temps all have a HUGE impact on both testing results and what 'my buddy' ran. It's unreasonable to simply pick the quickest times you've read about and conclude one's faster than the other. Their acceleration times are quite comparable - there's no way around it. A good driver in a good Evo will outrun a bad driver in a bad Stang; and the opposite is true to when it comes to acceleration. In all other performance categories, it's no contest.

Read in more detail and you'll find Ford engineers are struggling to meet weight requirements - they're not the only ones. It's true for just about every new vehicle -- safety requirements and options/standard content (marketing dept. at work) conspire to almost ALWAYS have newer models weighing more than older models. The '05 will be no exception - their targets are to come in at or slightly more than the previous year's car. Watch what happens when the production vehicles actually show up - they're gonna be heavy (3600+ lbs.); there's no way around that either.

 

[Michael Yount]

Oh - kirkyg - my daughter turns 30 next month. I grew up during the heart of the American muscle car era. My first car was a 55 Chevy. I'm quite certain I understand the allure and sound of a torquey V-8 better than you think I do (see the sig after all). But I also made the mistake of driving cars that handled and stopped really well very early on in my life (and they weren't built in this country), and I prefer, when I can find it, to have acceleration, stopping and handling. Don't misunderstand me - Ford will sell a bunch of Stangs as they should. It has been and will continue to be a popular vehicle for them. But as has been the case in the past, it's strong suit will be acceleration, not it's stopping and handling performance. For folks that like that - go for it. I support your choice 110%. And I'll make a different choice. I can live with that.

 

[Michael Yount]

I'll carry it one step further - look at the trends. The non-domestic manufacturers continue to grow in market share. Daimler-Chrysler (arguably they aren't domestic anymore) is the only one that picked up a slight bit of market share last year (13.2% to 13.4%); Ford and GM continued to lose while Honda and Toyota gained ground (as did Subaru). The fact is that the public is voting with their pocket books. Unless Ford and GM can build cars to compete with the likes of the Civic/Corolla/Camry/Accord, you're not even gonna have the Mustang to play with for much longer. GM/Ford have stayed afloat this long only because of their size and their trucks. Their size continues to diminish, and the truck/suv market is under fire from other manufacturers and the price of gasoline. I personally don't think they will be able to turn the corner alone. So get your new Stang while you can - before it has a bow-tie badge on it!

 

[kirkyg]

last i checked its weight dist. was 49/51 which is much better than some of the other cars out there that have been talked about. It should handle nicely. Granted it doesn't have AWD it doesn't need awd...mustang has always been a build your own vehicle as its considerably cheaper for what you get. If you wanna go blow your money on an ugly ass evo go for it. Id get spanked by an evo and still feel great because i have an awesome sounding sweet looking GT.

kirkyg

 

[kirkyg]

last i checked its weight dist. was 49/51 which is much better than some of the other cars out there that have been talked about. It should handle nicely. Granted it doesn't have AWD it doesn't need awd...mustang has always been a build your own vehicle as its considerably cheaper for what you get. If you wanna go blow your money on an ugly ass evo go for it. Id get spanked by an evo and still feel great because i have an awesome sounding sweet looking GT.

kirkyg