• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

Some clarification on MT's 05 GT track test

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2112
  • Start date Start date Sep 29, 2004
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
2

2112

New Member
Sep 29, 2004
34
0
0
Sep 29, 2004
#1
  • Sep 29, 2004
  • #1
This is REALLY good news and I don't know why the original poster didnt bring it up in the other post. MT has a likely reason behind the 05's low trap speed of 99.9 mph. "It's 99.9 mph speed at the end of the quarter mile is just shy where most current-gen Mustangs run. We suspect the new car's deep, high-fuel-mileage fourth and fifth gears are to blame. They say "First, second and third are tightly spaced and snap off upshifts nearly as rapidly as a Mercedes AMG SpeedShift automatic. Fourth and fifth gears, however, are performance-sucking black holes slowing the otherwise energetic acceleration curve". They say the expect the manual to run in the 4.8-4.9 range 0-60 mph and I think you can also shave a good .02-.03 seconds off that quarter mile in a manual where you can control the shifts which would put it at about 13.3-13.4 in the quarter Just more proof that manuals are almost always faster then autos and to avoid an 05 GT auto like the plague if you plan on racing

More intresting stuff: "The 2005 GT is quicker than all but the current SVT Cobra, and, even so, only by 0.2-0.3-second margin. With a 5.1-second run to 60 mph, the new Mustang outruns a comparable 1999-2004 GT four speed automatic by nearly a full second. A same-gen five-speed manual GT managed only a 5.4-second 0-to-60, and an automatic Mach 1 mustered a 5.6 best. Similar story in the quarter mile" The new car's 13.6-second time is about a half to a full second better."

"In the 600 ft. slalom, the new Mustang feels altogether more precise, predictable and stable than the car it replaces. The firmer platform is better suited to allowing the suspension and tires to do their job more effectivley. Where the old car slides as a whole past each cone (unpredictably at that) the 2005 bites hard on the initial turn-in, transfers weight in the blink of an eye, and manages rear roll-steer far better. Just a hint of opposite-direction wheel input brings the rear end back in line with an authorative snap ready for the next cone. The best run was over 66 mph, better than any previous Mustang except the race-ready Cobra R of 2000.
 

Mrgreen94gt

SIMMA DA NA!!!
Founding Member
Jul 16, 2002
448
0
0
West TN
Sep 29, 2004
#2
  • Sep 29, 2004
  • #2
With a set of 4.10 or 4.30 gears, that lag going into fourth (1.00 ratio) would be nonexistant.

Besides, it's probably more of a programming issue than a gearing issue causing the drop off in acceleration. Worst case, that could be caused by the rumored head problems.
 
2

2112

New Member
Sep 29, 2004
34
0
0
Sep 29, 2004
#3
  • Sep 29, 2004
  • #3
By the way...the also have a Dyno test in there as well. The GT puts down 267 hp @ 5275 rpm and 283 lb-ft @ 4350 rpm Can't wait to get one of these
 
J

jasonlee0704

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
219
0
0
Kansas City, MO
Sep 29, 2004
#4
  • Sep 29, 2004
  • #4
Screams, "shift kit".

I wonder how bullet-resistant the new auto is - what happens if you slap on a future power-adder and some slicks?
 

MrMorden

New Member
Nov 28, 2001
754
0
0
Athens, GA
Sep 30, 2004
#5
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #5
I've heard rumors that the auto will actually be quicker than the manual if you can keep it out of the overdrive gears.

4.10s should go in this car, whatever transmission you choose.
 
M

Matt Gruber

New Member
Sep 27, 2004
50
0
0
New Smyrna Beach FL
Sep 30, 2004
#6
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #6
anyone know the ratios?
 
Q

QCStang

Founding Member
Mar 28, 2002
813
1
18
Aylmer, Quebec, Canada
Sep 30, 2004
#7
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #7
For ratios, check the specs on the Thunderbird tranny.

As far as auto goes:

1. When available (which should be real soon) change valve body, higher ratio gears, torque converter and put in a rachet shifter, and tweak the computer for shift points. I'm going to say a 5 speed wouldn't touch the automatic with those mods.

2. As tested in the last version of the Camaro, the automatic actually went FASTER in the 1/4. Apparently the computer was able to change gears faster than a real pro on the stick.
 
F

falchulk

New Member
Jan 23, 2004
178
0
0
Sep 30, 2004
#8
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #8
QCStang said:
For ratios, check the specs on the Thunderbird tranny.

As far as auto goes:

1. When available (which should be real soon) change valve body, higher ratio gears, torque converter and put in a rachet shifter, and tweak the computer for shift points. I'm going to say a 5 speed wouldn't touch the automatic with those mods.

2. As tested in the last version of the Camaro, the automatic actually went FASTER in the 1/4. Apparently the computer was able to change gears faster than a real pro on the stick.
Click to expand...

Thats not true. The only auto fbody's that out run a pro on a stick have a stall converter. They aint doing it wih what came in the car from the factory.
 
Q

QCStang

Founding Member
Mar 28, 2002
813
1
18
Aylmer, Quebec, Canada
Sep 30, 2004
#9
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #9
falchulk said:
Thats not true. The only auto fbody's that out run a pro on a stick have a stall converter. They aint doing it wih what came in the car from the factory.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. I should have said Most, except a real pro.
 
2

2112

New Member
Sep 29, 2004
34
0
0
Sep 30, 2004
#10
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #10
MrMorden said:
I've heard rumors that the auto will actually be quicker than the manual if you can keep it out of the overdrive gears.

4.10s should go in this car, whatever transmission you choose.
Click to expand...

I have very little experience with auto performance cars so how do you keep it out of OD gears? They are saying 4th and 5th gears are what drag your times down and I dont think you can run a quarter mile with only 3 gears. Besides, with 300/315 racing from a good 40 mph roll will be great and you can't drop it into 2nd and nail it to get a good jump with an auto
 

vrpirata

Founding Member
Jul 22, 2002
274
0
0
Southern California
Sep 30, 2004
#11
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #11
Automatic:
5R55S ratios are: (1st) 3.25, (2nd) 2.44, (3rd) 1.55, (4th) 1.00, (5th) 0.75… (Rev) 3.08

Manual:
TR-3650 are: (1st) 3.38, (2nd) 2.00, (3rd) 1.32, (4th) 1.00, (5th) 0.62… (Rev) 3.38

Manual will have 3.55:1 gears, Automatic will have 3.31:1.
From the motor to the wheels, the Manual has a ~15-16% loss, the Automatic ~18-20% loss, the Automatic is going to be heavier by ~50 lbs or more.
 
M

Matt Gruber

New Member
Sep 27, 2004
50
0
0
New Smyrna Beach FL
Sep 30, 2004
#12
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #12
vrpirata
thanks! there is a big rpm drop 3rd to 4th auto
 

M1Rifle

New Member
May 23, 2004
137
0
0
Sep 30, 2004
#13
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #13
For the hard core racers, Ford Racing parts sells a close ratio version of the 5spd, which (with 4.10's or higher numerical) would allow you to pull strong and fast through 4 gears in a 1/4 mile, rather than stretching out 3 gears and have the 3-4 shift come at/near the end of the 1/4.
 
S

SWortham

New Member
Jan 11, 2004
81
0
0
Sep 30, 2004
#14
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #14
Ehh... I'm going to avoid the Automatic like the plague no matter what. I don't like automatics, and I especially hate Ford's automatics. If you're a hardcore drag racer, then that might be another story as there are plenty of other considerations when aiming for max performance.
 

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Sep 30, 2004
#15
  • Sep 30, 2004
  • #15
vrpirata said:
Automatic:
5R55S ratios are: (1st) 3.25, (2nd) 2.44, (3rd) 1.55, (4th) 1.00, (5th) 0.75… (Rev) 3.08
Click to expand...


Your ratio numbers are NOT correct. What you listed is the ratios of the old 5R55N trannie.

The 5R55S as used on the 2005 Mustang are:
(1st) 3.22. (2nd) 2.29, (3rd) 1.54, (4th) 1.00, (5th) 0.71

If you look at one of the other threads I already explained the 99 MPH trap time. If you go through the #'s (assuming that the trannie is programmed to shift at the published 6,000 RPM red-line), the '05 ATX GT will shift from 3rd to 4th at 95.3 MPH, or just before the finish line. This explains the relatively low trap speed.

It will take a very good driver to make an '05 GT MTX go faster in the 1/4 mile, but the MTX will have a much better trap speed as you will be able to complete the 1/4 in 3rd gear. It appears that fuel shut-off on the MTX is 6,200 RPM which corresponds to 106 MPH. So the MTX should trap at a much higher speed (I'd gues 104 MPH) but it will take an excellent driver to get it under 13.5 sec. I'd guess the best drivers will be able to get the MTX down around 13.2 - 13.3 sec.
 
J

Jpjr

New Member
Aug 5, 2004
142
0
0
Oct 1, 2004
#16
  • Oct 1, 2004
  • #16
Can someone provide me a reality chech here? I'm not sure if MT got a tuned 05 or what, but those perf. numbers just don't make sense. How, physically, is a 267rwhp '05 within 0.1-0.2. seconds of a more aerodynamic 367rwhp Cobra? You can't attribute that to handling can you!?

The new Mustang, head to head, should be slower than an equally powered '04. The drag co-efficient has to be much more to overcome for the new one.

I am not saying that these numbers are false, would just like someone to explain how its possible.
 

new22003

New Member
Jun 22, 2003
657
0
0
Missouri
Oct 1, 2004
#17
  • Oct 1, 2004
  • #17
Jpjr said:
Can someone provide me a reality chech here? I'm not sure if MT got a tuned 05 or what, but those perf. numbers just don't make sense. How, physically, is a 267rwhp '05 within 0.1-0.2. seconds of a more aerodynamic 367rwhp Cobra? You can't attribute that to handling can you!?

The new Mustang, head to head, should be slower than an equally powered '04. The drag co-efficient has to be much more to overcome for the new one.

I am not saying that these numbers are false, would just like someone to explain how its possible.
Click to expand...

People know so little about aerodynamics and put too much stock in how much it comes into play. Especially in the quarter mile on stock or near stock cars. Remember today we are talking about C of Drag within 0.1 of each other at most, not the old days when it could vary by as much a 0.5 .

Aerodynamics dont come into much play below 100 mph, as in the quarter mile on a stock stang. Also the new car has 40 more horse, better gearing in the trans and rear end than the current car. MY wifes car runs mid to low 14's all stock.(2000 Auto GT). Add 40 horses and more torque and better gearing and you could easily pick up the extra time.

Also my cobra ran 12.8 stock which is much faster than the 05 in MT. My cobra is also somewhat traction limited. The 05 can be launched much easier than an 03/04 cobra I imagine.

Also I havent seen any official C of Drag for the 2005. Remember a car that looks aerodynamic isnt always that good and vice versa. Everyone used to think the lambo countach was aerodynamic because it was wedge shaped. It really had a C of Drag of over 0.4 .
 
J

Jpjr

New Member
Aug 5, 2004
142
0
0
Oct 1, 2004
#18
  • Oct 1, 2004
  • #18
new22003 said:
Also I havent seen any official C of Drag for the 2005. Remember a car that looks aerodynamic isnt always that good and vice versa. Everyone used to think the lambo countach was aerodynamic because it was wedge shaped. It really had a C of Drag of over 0.4 .
Click to expand...

-Good points here, but I think that's stretching a bit. The 05 has rough edges and a huge mouth. How that could decrease drag to me seems physically impossible.

As far as the performance numbers, I was referring to the original poster saying the 05 GT is 0.2 away from the Cobra. Your figure seems a lot more realistic. I would expect the new GT to be at least 0.7-1.0 off the current 6 spd. Cobra, given the power difference, aerodynamics, and gearing.

It's amazing how much faster a car becomes when you really like it
 

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Oct 1, 2004
#19
  • Oct 1, 2004
  • #19
Jpjr said:
Can someone provide me a reality chech here? I'm not sure if MT got a tuned 05 or what, but those perf. numbers just don't make sense. How, physically, is a 267rwhp '05 within 0.1-0.2. seconds of a more aerodynamic 367rwhp Cobra? You can't attribute that to handling can you!?

The new Mustang, head to head, should be slower than an equally powered '04. The drag co-efficient has to be much more to overcome for the new one.

I am not saying that these numbers are false, would just like someone to explain how its possible.
Click to expand...

Please show me the drag #s that say the Cobra is more aerodynamic.

You are ignoring the huge improvements in suspension, F/R weight balance and unibody stiffness. All of those are important in putting power to the ground which is what makes you go fast.
 
D

drummer

New Member
Sep 5, 2004
84
0
0
Oct 1, 2004
#20
  • Oct 1, 2004
  • #20
351CJ said:
Please show me the drag #s that say the Cobra is more aerodynamic.

You are ignoring the huge improvements in suspension, F/R weight balance and unibody stiffness. All of those are important in putting power to the ground which is what makes you go fast.
Click to expand...



WHAT???? the 05 is unibody? I thought it was going to be framed? if its unibody then its over... talk about a wreck and its done.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2008 Mustang Bullitt stuck in Fifth gear
  • Jester67
  • Jul 15, 2025
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
388
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- May 27, 2026
Jester67
B
Questions About T5 Manual
  • Blackout67
  • Apr 13, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
589
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 22, 2025
89ripper
A
2001 Mustang GT, scorched metal smell and noise from trans/diff?
  • AndyE2255
  • Dec 1, 2025
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
450
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Dec 28, 2025
gkomo
R
94’ SN95 - Intermittent lope & bogging at moderate rpm
  • Red5.0ho
  • Nov 2, 2025
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
5
Views
445
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Nov 3, 2025
General karthief
S
Upgrade Advice on an 89 GT Convertible NJ
  • SteakDad
  • Apr 17, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
862
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 18, 2025
limp
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific 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?