Preliminary 1/4mi times for stock '05 GT

NDBullitt

New Member

Feb 18, 2004

31

0

0

Westerville, OH

Sep 14, 2004

#21

• Sep 14, 2004

• #21

I would enjoy a 105mph trap speed. But I'm not feeling it.

 

Rootus

Officially Addicted

Feb 8, 2003

6,659

1

0

Portland, Oregon

Sep 14, 2004

#22

• Sep 14, 2004

• #22

mball said:

No way, it will do better than that. It should be a high 13 car at around 105 MPH. But now that I have seen the pricing, forget it. I would much rather pay a little more and get a GTO or an Evo and blow right past it

Click to expand...

I don't see it trapping 105 with any regularity. I trap 106 with 310 rwhp and 3500 lb raceweight. Granted, my drag racing skills are nonexistent, but even so. I expect it to turn similar times to the old 96-01 Cobras. I routinely ran 14.5 @ 102 with my 98 Cobra (did I mention I suck at drag racing? ).

Dave

 

C

ChromeYellowGT

New Member

Apr 25, 2004

39

0

0

Sep 14, 2004

#23

• Sep 14, 2004

• #23

I'm gonna wait and see what the magazines run with it. If it's still trapping around 98mph (same as my stock auto 99) I''ll wait for the SVT version and get a leftover Mach 1 or GTO now.

 

T

TomServo92

New Member

Dec 22, 2003

517

0

0

Texas

Sep 15, 2004

#24

• Sep 15, 2004

• #24

mball said:

No way, it will do better than that. It should be a high 13 car at around 105 MPH. But now that I have seen the pricing, forget it. I would much rather pay a little more and get a GTO or an Evo and blow right past it

Click to expand...

Great! Have fun with your Uber-Grand Am!

 

thehemi

New Member

Dec 2, 2002

73

0

0

Texas

Sep 15, 2004

#25

• Sep 15, 2004

• #25

I would not be surprised if it can grab high 13s.
Although maybe the throttle-by-wire is going to
be hampering things more than expected?

 

351CJ

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

1,732

1

0

Sep 15, 2004

#26

• Sep 15, 2004

• #26

At one of the 2005 Mustang events I spoke at length with a Ford engineering manager. One of the subjects he brought up was how fast the ATX would be.

He said that they dig a drag race session among a bunch of Ford engineers with '05 Stangs. These are people who know how to driver cars hard. He said that 9 out of 10 people who participated in their test were faster in the 1/4 mile with an ATX than MTX. ETC or not, you have to know how to drive at MTX to pull a good 1/4 time. 5.0 (or could have been MM&FFs) had an article that showed how much faster their ace driver was than the average schlub in a 2001 Mustang GT.

 

CarrollShelby

Banned

Aug 16, 2004

337

0

0

Québec, Canada

Sep 15, 2004

#27

• Sep 15, 2004

• #27

I told you... Not enough power!

"03 GT (260hp stock)... 15.1@1/4mile

"05 GT (300hp stock)... 14.7@1/4mile

It's make sense to me...

 

C

ChromeYellowGT

New Member

Apr 25, 2004

39

0

0

Sep 15, 2004

#28

• Sep 15, 2004

• #28

CarrollShelby said:

I told you... Not enough power!

"03 GT (260hp stock)... 15.1@1/4mile

"05 GT (300hp stock)... 14.7@1/4mile

It's make sense to me...

Click to expand...

15.1 for a V6 maybe. My 99 GT with an auto went 14.2@98 bone stock, and I've seen several 5 speed models running in the high 13's@100-101.

 

CarrollShelby

Banned

Aug 16, 2004

337

0

0

Québec, Canada

Sep 15, 2004

#29

• Sep 15, 2004

• #29

I alway's take real info... Not dreaming info???

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=2851&page_number=3

 

C

ChromeYellowGT

New Member

Apr 25, 2004

39

0

0

Sep 15, 2004

#30

• Sep 15, 2004

• #30

If you want to magazine race, Motor Trend ran a 14.0@100 with a 99 GT in their 12/99 issue.

 

R

RICKS

New Member

Jun 5, 2003

580

0

0

Ocala, FL

Sep 15, 2004

#31

• Sep 15, 2004

• #31

Furthermore guys, this article that Mr. Shelby keeps referring to is an AUTOMATIC with the MACH 1000 sound system, an option that weighs a ton; big amps, subwoofers, cabinets, and extra sound-proofing throughout the cabin. We all know that automatic GT's are fairly slow compared to the 5-speeds, but Mr. Shelby doesn't seem to worry about any of these minor details.

Motor Trend ran a 14.0@100 with a 99 GT in their 12/99 issue.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Mr. Shelby will deduce that Ford must have somehow "detuned" the 4.6 between '99 and '03

 

DJsZincGT

Founding Member

Aug 29, 2002

1,141

0

36

WV

Sep 15, 2004

#32

• Sep 15, 2004

• #32

You know if everyone would just ignore his (and all the other trolls) pointless posts it would save a ton of space. It's obvious he's a troll...so just ignore it.

Lets get back on topic

 

A

autoXr1

Founding Member

May 3, 2001

1,838

0

0

Michigan

Sep 15, 2004

#33

• Sep 15, 2004

• #33

Why do I get the feeling that some folks are looking a little more into this than necessary? Many auto mags that do these "shootouts" often bump the timing, put on sticky tires or play with tire pressure, do several launches to figure out the best technique with each car, and so forth. Eventually, they nail down some decent times with their "hot shoe" driver. Heck, you can take a full weight, 5 speed, '89GT with a stock 190rwhp engine, tune it, and get into the low 14s, high 13s with excellent driving technique and powershifting.

This was 2 pre-production GTs, stock, untuned, questionable driving techniques, and so forth. There were several hundred people who witnessed the hits. Sorry to disappoint. Mid-high 14s. Big deal. So you mod them like any other Mustang. Steeda, Paul's High Performance, and others already have parts on their shelves waiting for buyers.

 

CarrollShelby

Banned

Aug 16, 2004

337

0

0

Québec, Canada

Sep 15, 2004

#34

• Sep 15, 2004

• #34

Thank's autoXr1...

Automatic or 5 speed?
Take off 0.6 sec. 1/4mile and you have the right figure for the 260hp GT 5 speed!

 

R

RICKS

New Member

Jun 5, 2003

580

0

0

Ocala, FL

Sep 15, 2004

#35

• Sep 15, 2004

• #35

Take another 2 tenths off for the added weight of the Mach 1000, which hardly ANY Mustang GT's ever have. And what do you get? 14.3 in the 1/4, damn close to WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG, the 260 h.p. GT 5-speed is typically 13.9-14.2 car. Your skull is so thick, it's a wonder there's room for a noodle in there (noodle is american slang for brain).

 

mattdee1

Active Member

Feb 21, 2002

1,525

2

39

Windsor, ON

Sep 15, 2004

#36

• Sep 15, 2004

• #36

High 14's sucks.

I'm sure the car will prove to be better than that, but if not, count me out.

 

W

willy_sc5.0

New Member

Jun 20, 2004

46

0

0

NY

Sep 15, 2004

#37

• Sep 15, 2004

• #37

CarrollShelby said:

I alway's take real info... Not dreaming info???

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=2851&page_number=3

Click to expand...

Mustang GT

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_9912_mustanggt/index.html
14.0-second/100.2-mph

Mach 1

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

13.2 @ 106.7 I'm dreaming too? Stupid trolls!

 

T

TomServo92

New Member

Dec 22, 2003

517

0

0

Texas

Sep 16, 2004

#38

• Sep 16, 2004

• #38

willy_sc5.0 said:

Mustang GT

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_9912_mustanggt/index.html
14.0-second/100.2-mph

Mach 1

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

13.2 @ 106.7 I'm dreaming too? Stupid trolls!

Click to expand...

I'm betting the '05 GT falls somewhere in between but closer to the Mach 1 time.

 

jadesville

the polarbear conservation corps protects a polarb

20+ Year Stangneter

Oct 8, 2003

2,189

0

47

Gresham, OR

Sep 16, 2004

#39

• Sep 16, 2004

• #39

TomServo92 said:

I'm betting the '05 GT falls somewhere in between but closer to the Mach 1 time.

Click to expand...

I have my money on it too

 

ryanrule

impotent

Founding Member

Feb 11, 2002

1,355

0

0

Madison, WI

Sep 16, 2004

#40

• Sep 16, 2004

• #40

TomServo92 said:

I'm betting the '05 GT falls somewhere in between but closer to the Mach 1 time.

Click to expand...

it better. if they are gonna use the excuse that they are catering to drag racers for keeping the solid rear, then it better pull some good times