05 GT beats both Mach 1 and 01 Cobra From a Roll

From a guy that works for Magnaflow...post on stangnet:

Stangnet Post (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=505652)

This does add to the mounting evidence that the new 05 is very quick.

For anyone doubting this, lets say the Mach 1 and Cobra weren't behind by a 1.5 car length but dead even (correcting any "supposed" large driver error on their part), the 05 will launch quicker from the line so even in the most conservative case, the 05 would still end up ahead. Or at least that's my logic.

[QUOTE=dan05gtowner]From a guy that works for Magnaflow...post on stangnet:

Stangnet Post (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=505652)

This does add to the mounting evidence that the new 05 is very quick.

QUOTE]

Unless you forget about 14.2 @96 and 13.xx at 99, yes both autos but not that impressive.

[QUOTE=dan05gtowner]From a guy that works for Magnaflow...post on stangnet:

Stangnet Post (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=505652)

This does add to the mounting evidence that the new 05 is very quick.

QUOTE]

Unless you forget about 14.2 @96 and 13.xx at 99, yes both autos but not that impressive.

:confused: In this case, all cars were manuals. So I'm not following?

Second, I still don't get the 99mph trap arguement. Who cares what it traps if the time is good?

Yes, traps are a good indicator of whether a car has more potential (ie. if your time is slow but your trap is high, a better driver could achieve better times), however if an auto can trap 99mph and do the quarter in 13.6s, that's amazing. Its obviously doing well because of its ability to hookup off the line. In the end, its your time that's most important.

13.6 seconds in the quarter by an auto is quite impressive no matter how you look at it.

13.6 seconds in the quarter by an auto is quite impressive no matter how you look at it.

No joke there. The better weight distribution must really help this car from a dig.

Unless you forget about 14.2 @96 and 13.xx at 99, yes both autos but not that impressive.Just curious, is that the 14.2 from the grainy video where the scoreboard was not shown (the narrator vocalized the time) and the details of the car were not known.
I know that ultra-reliable footage has become the hallmark of '05 GT performance for some of you.
:thumb:
I think some people are going to be tripping over their own excuses in the coming months, just as they were when the '03 Cobras hit the street. :lol:
S.

Just curious, is that the 14.2 from the grainy video where the scoreboard was not shown (the narrator vocalized the time) and the details of the car were not known.
I know that ultra-reliable footage has become the hallmark of '05 GT performance for some of you.
:thumb:
I think some people are going to be tripping over their own excuses in the coming months, just as they were when the '03 Cobras hit the street. :lol:
S.

Nor is rumor, hearsay, and a magazine article. :thumb:

As for the last part of your statement, I doubt it. I will predict that the new GT will run about 102-103 in the quarter.

Uhh...wasn't the magazine "article" actually an instrumented test, while the video was impromptu footage of a car that was never positively identified with a time that wasn't even shown by the camera? That sounds like the hearsay you've been clutching to for support.
And yes...when the 5-speed GT's start being tested, you'll likely be one of those tripping over excuses for the results. "It was a ringer", "it has gears", "it was on a sticky tire", "it was pre-production"...blah, blah, blah.
FYI...the 5-speed cars have more gear (3.55's vs. 3.31's) and less parasitic loss than the A5 cars. I'll guess they'll run faster than 102mph.
But keep clutching to that 99.9mph trap speed, it might save ya'.
:lol:
S.

Uhh...wasn't the magazine "article" actually an instrumented test, while the video was impromptu footage of a car that was never positively identified with a time that wasn't even shown by the camera? That sounds like the hearsay you've been clutching to for support.
And yes...when the 5-speed GT's start being tested, you'll likely be one of those tripping over excuses for the results. "It was a ringer", "it has gears", "it was on a sticky tire", "it was pre-production"...blah, blah, blah.
FYI...the 5-speed cars have more gear (3.55's vs. 3.31's) and less parasitic loss than the A5 cars. I'll guess they'll run faster than 102mph.
But keep clutching to that 99.9mph trap speed, it might save ya'.
:lol:
S.

Where is the proof in what the 5speed car will run? huh? There is none. Nor is there about dyno numbers, ect. which has been thrown around liberally by your Mustang brothers. So, that is the hearsay that i am referring to smarty. And I stick by what I predict and I doubt I will eat my words.

ahem (http://www.geocities.com/ltm_awake/05dynoauto.jpg)
a touch under 326 crank horsepower at 18 percent loss, which is more reasonable if this was an automatic, and quite consistent with claims of 276ish rwhp from the manuals (324.7 crank at 15 percent).

Where is the proof in what the 5speed car will run? huh? There is none. Nor is there about dyno numbers, ect. which has been thrown around liberally by your Mustang brothers. So, that is the hearsay that i am referring to smarty. And I stick by what I predict and I doubt I will eat my words.Even when they're tested, there will be excuses, and much whining will ensue. :cry:
And yes...there have been several sources of dyno numbers. Here (http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=548367) is one link, there are others, but you'd simply dismiss them. :D
275rwhp is about 40-50rwhp more than a '99-'04 5-speed GT. The '05 weighs within 50lbs. of the current car.
I particularly liked this...
Unless you forget about 14.2 @96 and 13.xx at 99, yes both autos but not that impressive.Where you cleverly omitted the ".6". Here...I'll do it for you. 13.6@99.9mph. Get used to seeing those mid-13 second numbers, and start warming up to low-13 claims (and maybe even quicker). :D
S.

quicker than low 13 sec eh? why would ford make the GT faster than the mach 1 and almost as fast as a 35 grand cobra?

TONY

because it doesnt have to worry about stealing sales from models that no longer are being sold.

so there won't be any more cobra's or mach 1's? just gt's?

TONY

so there won't be any more cobra's or mach 1's? just gt's?

TONY

Not right now. In 06-7 its the cobra, but no one really knows what it will be makeing for hp and the mach1 might turn into the boss. Do a search

Even when they're tested, there will be excuses, and much whining will ensue. :cry:
And yes...there have been several sources of dyno numbers. Here (http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=548367) is one link, there are others, but you'd simply dismiss them. :D
275rwhp is about 40-50rwhp more than a '99-'04 5-speed GT. The '05 weighs within 50lbs. of the current car.
I particularly liked this...
[/b]Where you cleverly omitted the ".6". Here...I'll do it for you. 13.6@99.9mph. Get used to seeing those mid-13 second numbers, and start warming up to low-13 claims (and maybe even quicker). :D
S.

How about you use a few more smileys.

I dissmiss them like you dismiss the video.

I am not going to believe anything until there is repeated data by many different sources that can form some sort of consensus. By the way, 275 is nothing to brag about.

How about you use a few more smileys.

I dissmiss them like you dismiss the video.

I am not going to believe anything until there is repeated data by many different sources that can form some sort of consensus. By the way, 275 is nothing to brag about.Which video?
Oh...the one with the nearly unidentifiable '05, filmed by an unknown source, in which the scoreboard was never shown and the time was narrated by the cameraman.
:lol:
So yes, that's pretty much a joke.
An instrumented test by a major publication isn't legit, but a grainy video from an unknown track is. :lol: That's classic.
Conversely, if the GT ran a 14.6, you'd be on here defending the validity of Motor Trend's testing procedures. :lol:
S.

LOL... the listed weight on edmunds is 3300 for the 6 cyl coupe, so the gt may actually weigh more than a Z28.. the increase in power may be offset by the increase in weight. Ford's reasoning on this is pretty practical as far as I can tell. One reason the f-body is gone is a lack of styling compared to other vehicles in the same market, and Ford is definitely trying to keep out of that dead spot with all the imports competing for sporty niches now as well. So the whole retro thing should take care of that nicely. As far as performance, all Ford has to do is make sure it makes all the right Ford V-8 sounds, which they have done well on in the past, this one should be no exception. As long as it can beat the previous model in acceleration from a general standpoint, then no one will be complaining there. Not to mention, I don't think Ford is really looking for knock em dead times from their gt anyway when the cobra is the one raising everyone's eyebrows. And why is everyone argueing about a car that is still to come out anyway? I think I can at least wait till I see one before I bash Ford's newest creation. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Which video?
Oh...the one with the nearly unidentifiable '05, filmed by an unknown source, in which the scoreboard was never shown and the time was narrated by the cameraman.
:lol:
So yes, that's pretty much a joke.
An instrumented test by a major publication isn't legit, but a grainy video from an unknown track is. :lol: That's classic.
Conversely, if the GT ran a 14.6, you'd be on here defending the validity of Motor Trend's testing procedures. :lol:
S.

I bet the video was an elaborate plan to lower the expectations of future mustang owners.

I have told you what I think the manual GT will run, let me hear your prediction. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And why is everyone argueing about a car that is still to come out anyway?

It is out ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I bet the video was an elaborate plan to lower the expectations of future mustang owners.

I have told you what I think the manual GT will run, let me hear your prediction. :lol: :lol: :lol:I've already stated my prediction and opinion.
With ~270-280rwhp and a 5-speed, I think the softly sprung '05 GT's will run fairly consistently in the mid-13's. I would be confident of 13.4-13.5's at around 105mph, with some cars running a bit quicker, and some a bit slower. I'm not sure anybody will hit a 12 with a stock one, but I think people will get close. The car has an aluminum block and heads, and with more even weight distribution, I'd expect the car to get out pretty well.
But of course "the video" showed (or didn't show) an '05 GT running 14.2@96mph (or at least that's what the camera man stated), so I'm probably wrong.
S.

I love how 13.6 is impressive when the GTO ran nearly the same time with more trap speed, and was called slow.
Now if this Mustang has all this power, wouldnt it run a lot faster(meaning MPH) through the traps? Almost identical to the GTO, who has a weight disadvantage as well as a minor power advantage?
SO if this GT is pushing 330hp, yet coming in almost 300-400lbs less then the GTO, wouldnt the GT be going 13.4-13.6@ over 100mph? Something doesnt add up.

SO if this GT is pushing 330hp, yet coming in almost 300-400lbs less then the GTO, wouldnt the GT be going 13.4-13.6@ over 100mph? Something doesnt add up.

330hp may be a bit much. I suspect actual output to be closer to 315-320hp. From the looks of it, the auto has already hit 13.6's. The problem with the traps on the auto's is said to arise from the gearing and it having to shift into 4th before crossing the finish line or something. Apparantly, the first 3 gears are pretty aggressive, and the last 2 overdrive gears pretty mild/tall and economical (hence them being overdrive gears). That would probably explain why it is so explosive off the line, yet slow down once it hits 4th gear. Manual versions should be faster than 100+ i would think.

I think people had too high expectations for the GTO. It seemed like people where expecting it to be just as fast if not faster than the Ls1 f-bods.

I love how 13.6 is impressive when the GTO ran nearly the same time with more trap speed, and was called slow.That was a 6-speed GTO, the GT was an automatic.
And as we all know, A4 GTO's struggle to get into the 13's. A 350hp, LS1 GTO that can't get into the 13's is, IMO...not impressive.
Now if this Mustang has all this power, wouldnt it run a lot faster(meaning MPH) through the traps? Almost identical to the GTO, who has a weight disadvantage as well as a minor power advantage?Well...it ran 100mph on 267rwhp. That sounds decent to me.
One issue is the gear ratios of the 5-speed automatic. They're closely spaced in 1st, 2nd and 3rd and drop off in 4th.
SO if this GT is pushing 330hp, yet coming in almost 300-400lbs less then the GTO, wouldnt the GT be going 13.4-13.6@ over 100mph? Something doesnt add up.Uhh...the GT tested in Motor Trend ran 13.6@100mph (okay...99.9mph). And the 330hp figure is probably a touch optimistic.
There will be lots of excuses and much whining will occur if a 5-speed car runs what I predict it will.
S.

I've already stated my prediction and opinion.
With ~270-280rwhp and a 5-speed, I think the softly sprung '05 GT's will run fairly consistently in the mid-13's. I would be confident of 13.4-13.5's at around 105mph, with some cars running a bit quicker, and some a bit slower. I'm not sure anybody will hit a 12 with a stock one, but I think people will get close. The car has an aluminum block and heads, and with more even weight distribution, I'd expect the car to get out pretty well.
But of course "the video" showed (or didn't show) an '05 GT running 14.2@96mph (or at least that's what the camera man stated), so I'm probably wrong.
S.

Maybe if you talk about the video a little more, then it will become less relevent. It seems that a GT running 14.2 @ 96.xx doesn't seem that far off now does it? Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that the time is not possible and to dismiss it like it was a fake. No of course it doesn't mean that it is the definitive "new" mustang time but it is still there. You have made your prediction and I have made mine so we will see.

Either way, this aint like it hasnt been done before. Good for the Mustang I guess...but its not big deal.
Where is Evan Smith when you need him?

The question of the A5 intrigued me a bit, so I did some searching. I found the following data. I cannot personally vouch for its credibility, but the numbers seem reasonable, and I have more than one source listed:

5R55S 5 Speed Automatic Transmission

1st - 3.22
2nd - 2.29
3rd - 1.54
4th - 1.00
5th - 0.71
Final drive - 3.31

Come to your own conclusions on what this means.

Sources:
http://www.samsgarage.com/ford_mustang_2005_specs.htm
http://www.mustangworks.com/articles/features/2005_Mustang/specs.html

5R55S 5 Speed Automatic Transmission

1st - 3.22
2nd - 2.29
3rd - 1.54
4th - 1.00
5th - 0.71
Final drive - 3.31


Comparison to the previous 4R70W 4 speed.

1st - 2.84
2nd - 1.55
3rd - 1.00
4th - 0.70

Final drive: 3.27

Which video?
Oh...the one with the nearly unidentifiable '05, filmed by an unknown source, in which the scoreboard was never shown and the time was narrated by the cameraman.
:lol:
So yes, that's pretty much a joke.
An instrumented test by a major publication isn't legit, but a grainy video from an unknown track is. :lol: That's classic.
Conversely, if the GT ran a 14.6, you'd be on here defending the validity of Motor Trend's testing procedures. :lol:
S.


Which car?

The one delayed until January 2005???

I am actually inclined to believe these numbers as they agree with some other reports I have seen, but am very interested as to what car they were testing. Pre-production or a production car with the "defective" heads. Who knows what they will really do. Looks like we woulnt know till around Jan-Fed when we start seeing the actual production cars at the tracks and in the Mags.

I have developed a respect for PaperTarget, even ProudPony, and of course Bob Cosby, but you crack me up Snorman. You are so stuborn like many of the camaro guys here, it always makes for some good reading :D

Which car?

The one delayed until January 2005???

I have developed a respect for PaperTarget, even ProudPony, and of course Bob Cosby, but you crack me up Snorman. You are so stuborn like many of the camaro guys here, it always makes for some good reading :DROTFLMAO!
Good thing for me that I don't give a sh*t about earning your respect!
If you can't swallow facts, don't read my posts. :lol:

BTW...nice job posting that "delayed until January 2005" passage in every Mustang thread you can find.
You'll look pretty stupid if it's a rumor started by an inept car dealer!
:thumb:
S.

1985 Monte Carlo SS (SOLD)
-350 and some giggle juice (10.53@131mph)BTW...I hope you don't claim that the car on the website (http://people.clemson.edu/~ewsmith/) in your profile ran 10.53@131mph.
:confused:
S.

The question of the A5 intrigued me a bit, so I did some searching. I found the following data. I cannot personally vouch for its credibility, but the numbers seem reasonable, and I have more than one source listed:

5R55S 5 Speed Automatic Transmission

1st - 3.22
2nd - 2.29
3rd - 1.54
4th - 1.00
5th - 0.71
Final drive - 3.31

Come to your own conclusions on what this means.

Sources:
http://www.samsgarage.com/ford_mustang_2005_specs.htm
http://www.mustangworks.com/articles/features/2005_Mustang/specs.html

Looks like you and I have been thinking along the same lines. They didn't add an extra overdrive gear. They extra gear allowed them to be much more aggressive with the trans gearing down low, helping to leave the line harder. Its a smart move that should make the car a stoplight jack-rabbit. Based on this, I expect the 5-speed to be faster, but not by much, although it should trap slightly higher as well. For the record, I think its a smart move, provided the trans can handle some power....

Personally, I think most folks will see about the same ET with the M5 - perhaps a tenth or two quicker, but several more mph - perhaps 103-105.

Of course, some folks really suck with manuals, and will be MUCH slower.

I love how 13.6 is impressive when the GTO ran nearly the same time with more trap speed, and was called slow.
Now if this Mustang has all this power, wouldnt it run a lot faster(meaning MPH) through the traps? Almost identical to the GTO, who has a weight disadvantage as well as a minor power advantage?
SO if this GT is pushing 330hp, yet coming in almost 300-400lbs less then the GTO, wouldnt the GT be going 13.4-13.6@ over 100mph? Something doesnt add up.

Al, the 5-speed will hit your mark with no problem. Just stay tuned and I'll post info when it comes out. You might even see it do 13.3-13.4 @ 10x. ;)

Someone please welcome the new GT into 1/4 times done 7 years ago :bow:

TONY

But you can still buy a new mustang :confused:

Someone please welcome the new GT into 1/4 times done 7 years ago :bow:

TONY

But you can still buy a new mustang :confused:


I don't get your point? Those quarter mile times were done by cars long before the F-bodies as well. :rolleyes:

Yes, but those cars were not the comparably priced, Pony car competitor the Camaro was and hopefully will be again. I dont think a car of the same class and price did those numbers until the LS1 F-Body. I think thats what he was getting at.

Yes, but those cars were not the comparably priced, Pony car competitor the Camaro was and hopefully will be again. I dont think a car of the same class and price did those numbers until the LS1 F-Body. I think thats what he was getting at.

I agree with that. But the stang does those times for a proportionally better value than the F-bodies did. Yes, 7 years late, but its still quite an accomplishment to get those times out of a car and at the same time still have a successful formula for the entire model lineup.

Basically, the mustang did what the F-bodies didn't (unfortunately).....the model formula is actually sustainable while achieving those power outputs/times.

I agree with that. But the stang does those times for a proportionally better value than the F-bodies did. Yes, 7 years late, but its still quite an accomplishment to get those times out of a car and at the same time still have a successful formula for the entire model lineup.

Basically, the mustang did what the F-bodies didn't (unfortunately).....the model formula is actually sustainable while achieving those power outputs/times.

Better value? No. All you have to do is look at the Z28 or Formula to see the best bang for the buck. Both are just a hair slower than an SS or WS6 and could be had for well under 25k.

As far as the model formula of the F-body not being sustainable, I disagree and there have been many threads devoted to the F cars demise that show otherwise.

Go down to your local Chevrolet dealer, and ask to see a 2005 Camaro. Answers the sustainability question better than some silly threads.

GM has enough problems selling the GTO.

Getting back on topic, Mustang is decent, glad to finally see some modern underpinnings in a 25K V8, RWD car. Curious what the other model variations will bring. Agree that 5MT will get a tenth or two, but 3-5 mph in the 1/4. Time will tell.

-B

Go down to your local Chevrolet dealer, and ask to see a 2005 Camaro. Answers the sustainability question better than some silly threads.


-B

And that tells you what?

That apparently it wasn't sustainable?

It is out ;)

I haven't seen it :p

I'm curious as to this gear drop-off, though? That 4th gear is the same as 3rd in basically every 4 spd auto out there, and the same as 4th in most manuals. The gears look pretty well spaced for both performance and econcomy. I would still say it only has one overdrive gear, no new car cruises around at 1:1 on the highway anymore. The whole hitting 4th through the traps and losing a couple mph because of it is believable, though. Haven't the magazines done any good testing of the manual versions (which I assume have different gearing and would show otherwise)?

See this image (http://img82.exs.cx/img82/5733/124-2445_IMG.jpg)? Trust me, they're shipping.

Yes, forgot about the Overdrive thing. Anything less than 1.00 is considered overdrive, but not 1.00 or above. So, the Mustang has ONE overdrive gear in 5-speed AUTO, and that is the 5th gear. The 4th, having a ratio of precisely 1.00 is just straight gear.

6-speed fbody had 2 overdrive gears - 5th and 6th.