'05 GT runs 13.4 stock, 12.5 with bolt-ons and DOT's.

Clicky (http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19068)
Clicky (http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140434)
There are no timeslips on the links, but pics of the car and dyno graph. JDM is pretty well known, so I doubt they're being inventive.
Car has tuning, catback, pullies, rear QA1's, 4:30's and is on a 17" ET Street. Anthony at JDM commented the car went quicker than a 12.5...but they're not talking because there must be a mag feature on this testing.
I would guess this was at E-town, as JDM is in Freehold.
The aftermarket is going to hit big for these cars...maybe bigger than the '03/'04 Cobra aftermarket has over the last 2 years.
Talk amongst yourselves. ;)
S.

Pretty good, but I'd want to see what it does on street tires or like BFG drag radials instead, with some more streetable gears too. I don't see many people buying them just to race them.

I just spoke to Anthony at JDM.
The car went low-13's (didn't give the exact number), bone stock with an SCT flash tune. Stock tires.
S.

Pretty good, but I'd want to see what it does on street tires or like BFG drag radials instead, with some more streetable gears too. I don't see many people buying them just to race them.

With a manual trans , 4.30's are quite streetable ;)

With the exhaust, the car gained 11 HP. Seeing as the car traps 107 mph from 101, the other ~40 HP must've come from tuning and pulleys, because those are the only performance mods done to the car. Which means it's pretty tunable. If this is all it takes to get it to run 107 mph, that's very, very good.

I'd like them to keep stock shocks and tires and run the car then, I'm sure it wouldn't hook up well enough to run 12.50s, but quite possibly would still hit high 12's.

4.30 gears are a liiiiiiiiiittle steep :cool: and gas consumption will be quite high esp on the highway, but those are some great times! Oh, and also read they will go with 4.56 gears to get it into 11's (among other mods)

Anthony said the car picked up very nicely with the flash tune for 93 octane instead of the factory tune for 87. That's a big gain right there.
I would guess, if they're comparable to 5.0's and other 4.6's, the pulleys are worth maybe 8-10rwhp.
Again...with just a 93-octane SCT flash tune...otherwise bone stock, the car went "low-13's". This testing was done for MM&FF, details of everything will be in a forthcoming issue, as this just happened yesterday at an E-town track rental.
S.

Looks like Ford castrated the GT in the programming, just like the C6. There's weird sh*t going on at Ford and GM to lower warranty costs. Stuff like torque-f-in-management.

Looks like Ford castrated the GT in the programming, just like the C6. There's weird sh*t going on at Ford and GM to lower warranty costs. Stuff like torque-f-in-management.

I also think that ford is planning on using the same engine in some other models, boss, mach1, etc. So they detuned it quite a bit and i'm sure they'll have some other nice parts to boost hp in those cars.

Those are great times for the mods. Would 4.30s be pretty steep with the tranny offered on the GT? The various times/dyno reports that have been coming in for these cars are all over the spectrum. I think you are right about the tune being worth a ton of power though...

I KNEW IT!

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18769

There is torque management in the '05 GT. Just like there is in the C6.

Hence what should be a 13.3@105-106 car becomes a 13.8@101.

And in the case of the Vette what should be a 12.2-12.4@115-117 becomes a 12.7-13.0@111-113.

I don't know whether to be pissed or glad. Pissed that GM and Ford are hamstringing what would be incredible bang for the buck performance.

OR glad that all it takes is a flash to unlock huge performance.

Here's what I've been wondering. We know alot of people like to mod their Mustangs and quite a few will get this "93 octane reflash done" to increase horsepower. What happens when these cars start getting traded in. I'm sure 99$ of the people arent going to pay to have it retuned for 87 octane. Somebody then buys the car thinking 87 will suffice and bam, severe detonation.

PS, I hate torque management too. My 05 Ram with Hemi has it. The 03's with tranny programming have knocked .5 second off their times...grrrrrrrr

Both the SCT and Diablo flash tuners store the stock programming in memory and preserve the VIN.
The stock programming can easily be flashed back to the computer with no issues.
Therefore, if you are trading in the car, or taking it for warranty work...you can flash it back to stock. Also, there are plenty of people writing tunes for SCT and Diablosport flash tuners, making it easy to adjust the tune with further modifications.
S.

OK, didnt know they were using flash tuners. My friend with an 01 GT had a diablo chip he had to remove the kick panel and other stuff and swap chips. It sure didnt take long for them to come out with flash tuners, did Ford share some code or is it using the same pcm as the older ones?

OK, didnt know they were using flash tuners. My friend with an 01 GT had a diablo chip he had to remove the kick panel and other stuff and swap chips. It sure didnt take long for them to come out with flash tuners, did Ford share some code or is it using the same pcm as the older ones?Not sure.
I'm familiar with the flash tuners because they are very popular with the new Cobras.
Chips are going away, as there are more reliable ways to change the tune. EFI Solutions tuning software does basically the same thing, but you don't have a handheld unit. The tune is flashed onto your PCM by the tuner, and the stock tune is saved. If you want to take the car in for warranty work, it can be flashed back to stock. Most tuners will do that one-time at no charge.
S.

I KNEW IT!

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18769

There is torque management in the '05 GT. Just like there is in the C6.

Hence what should be a 13.3@105-106 car becomes a 13.8@101.

And in the case of the Vette what should be a 12.2-12.4@115-117 becomes a 12.7-13.0@111-113.

I don't know whether to be pissed or glad. Pissed that GM and Ford are hamstringing what would be incredible bang for the buck performance.

OR glad that all it takes is a flash to unlock huge performance.
Can anyone explain to me why they have Traction Control AND Torque Management on cars?

i will wait and see what happens in the hands of owners, rather than tuning shops... who knows what they did to it ,

Traction control is there simply for the driver to keep traction. Torque Management is there to limit the abuse on the drivetrain be limiting power until the vehicle gets up to speed a little. This saves on warranty costs.

Yes, it sucks.:(

i will wait and see what happens in the hands of owners, rather than tuning shops... who knows what they did to it ,

Actually, according to JDM (the tuner), you will be able to read all about it in an upcoming Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords issue. This was all done in conjunction with them.

Thus, I would say that it is pretty legit.

I don't understand, to me the meaning of stock is the exact condition of the car as it rolled of the assembly line, untouched in anyway. What is described in this post is not a stock '05, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Cool. I'll be looking for it next time I'm at Foodmaxx :D

I don't understand, to me the meaning of stock is the exact condition of the car as it rolled of the assembly line, untouched in anyway. What is described in this post is not a stock '05, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Well lets see, according to JDM, who was working in conjunction with Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine, the 13.4 time was on a bone stock car. This means the way it came from the factory. The 12.5 time is after the mods of underdrive pulleys, SCT tune, 4.30 gears, catback exhaust, and ET streets.

Thus, I guess I don't understand what it is you are talking about.

Please clarify. :)

FYI...the car has gone quicker than 12.5, but JDM isn't talking because "MM&FF would be pissed".
S.

FYI...the car has gone quicker than 12.5, but JDM isn't talking because "MM&FF would be pissed".
S.

Actually on one of the sites in their posts they said it went 12.45

Well lets see, according to JDM, who was working in conjunction with Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine, the 13.4 time was on a bone stock car. This means the way it came from the factory. The 12.5 time is after the mods of underdrive pulleys, SCT tune, 4.30 gears, catback exhaust, and ET streets.

Thus, I guess I don't understand what it is you are talking about.

Please clarify. :)

I think what 30thZ28 is getting at is that the "stock" run was after a reflash for 93 octane. To me, that doesn't qualify as bone stock. I'd be interested in seeing a real bone stock run, i.e. no tune, no different tires, the stock paper filter, etc.

You'd be surprised how many people with headers, catback, and a lid still consider themselves stock. "I'm stock except for..."

I think what 30thZ28 is getting at is that the "stock" run was after a reflash for 93 octane. To me, that doesn't qualify as bone stock. I'd be interested in seeing a real bone stock run, i.e. no tune, no different tires, the stock paper filter, etc.

You'd be surprised how many people with headers, catback, and a lid still consider themselves stock. "I'm stock except for..."Wrong.
I spoke to Anthony at JDM for about 20 minutes.
Bone stock, no flashed PCM, stock tires, untouched...the car went 13.4. Bone stock...13.4.
With the PCM flashed for 93-octane, the car went "low-13's". He didn't specify exactly what "low-13's" was, and I didn't ask.
I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from...nobody ever said it ran 13.4 after the PCM was flashed.

With gears, tires, catback and pullies...it went 12.5 (12.45) at 108mph. I was told the car went quicker later, but they didn't want to divulge exactly how fast it went.

I'm very interested in these cars. I've looked at a few, and I may stongly consider getting one after the first of the year for the wife.
S.

i will wait and see what happens in the hands of owners, rather than tuning shops... who knows what they did to it ,

What do they have to gain? If they did stuff to make the stock/baseline numbers seems faster (say 13.2 instead of 13.6), then wouldn't that make their mods and performance gains seem less effective when the modified version runs a 12.5? It'd make the before and after numbers less dramatic.

An aftermarket tuner has little to gain from making the stock car seem faster than it really is. If they're gonna fudge any numbers, it would be the modified numbers to make gains seem more dramatic/impressive.

The only thing ive seen reported from the "real world" is low 14's and squeeking into a few 13.9's from bone stock cars,

SOTP feel from all forum members that have tested it(not bias) , seems to fall right in between the stock GT and mach1.

so not a bad effort all in all.
;)

Stick your head in the sand, pretend it won't run mid-13's out of the box and then act surprised when it does.
The major mags have already gotten better numbers out of it than they did with the GTO a year ago...and GTO's have recently hit 13.2-13.3's (much to my surprise). There are a handful of cars out there in the mid-13's already, and it seems only a few people have actually seen one on the road.
When the track nuts get their hands on them, the times will drop.
SOTP don't mean sh*t. Timeslips do.
S.

Snorman, I went to Etown looking to see a little 05 Mustang action, but no luck...when did JDM go?

Snorman, I went to Etown looking to see a little 05 Mustang action, but no luck...when did JDM go?It was a track rental on Monday, I believe. It was for a MM&FF feature on modding the '05, so they're not divulging all of the results.
I too haven't seen any at the track. In fact, I haven't even seen one on the street yet, only saw a 6-cylinder at Downs and three GT's at Oasis. A local Cobra owner (HotRodHarry from the modular boards) saw one at E-town also running 13.4's all day a few weeks ago.
S.

I saw 1 V6 at Sansone...fuggin rip off artists if you havnet delt with them... and 1 V6 at the Ford dealership on 88 in Lakewood. No GT's yet, but I havent been down on 37 since the summer.

There is a white GT on the floor at Downs with a "Sold" sign hanging on the mirror. I haven't gone to look at it since I went over to Oasis twice to look at the GT's there.
S.

I am not shocked that it Ran that time . With that gear ratio and suspension setup I would expect something like that . All I can say Is its getting all its work done off the line . With those trap speeds its making a little over 300 HP and without Good gear ratios and suspension it would never have gotten out of the 13's .
Awsome though that It can be made to do it . Im sure I coulda done it in my car with minimal mods if the rear end was up to the kinda 60's needed to pull it off .
A f-bod with the same gear ratio's and Suspension setup coulda pulled the same thing of . Providing it was making as much power " LS1"

Although I will give credit where its do . Ford has a hellava winner on their hands .

If you have been following any of the most recent postings on the trap speeds for the GT's, it would provide the answer. According to a post by JDM, the computer shuts the throttle body for .1-.3 of a second at the top of the gears. This is a form of torque management that hinders trap speed.

This is very similar to what C6 owners are seeing.......... where their traps are not matching their hp numbers.

Again, torque management.

This is another big thing that the SCT flash takes care of in the new Mustang GT.

I just spoke to Anthony at JDM.
The car went low-13's (didn't give the exact number), bone stock with an SCT flash tune. Stock tires.
S.

This is the quote that caused my confusion. I guess I assumed the low-13s you were talking about was the 13.4. My mistake, and I can see that now when I re-read it and your message clarifying this.

By the way, it's not like I'm attacking your child. I wasn't really even attacking anything - just asking a question. I could do without the tone.

Looks like the '05 GT with torque management removed will be as fast as an '02 LS1 with no other mods. low-mid 13's@105-106.

Tuned for 93, it'll be faster. High 12s@107-108.

Geared it'll drop to to mid 12s.

Not my fault Ford decided to handicap the damn car out of the factory

I think it's more like maybe really low 13's being tuned for higher octane. You really gotta remember that most people are not running mid-13's with these cars and that these guys are testing theirs at basically the best track in the US.

On a side note, does the 05 have an option for side door moldings or something like that? I haven't seen any pictures of one with them yet.

Looks like the '05 GT with torque management removed will be as fast as an '02 LS1 with no other mods. low-mid 13's@105-106.

Tuned for 93, it'll be faster. High 12s@107-108.

Geared it'll drop to to mid 12s.

Not my fault Ford decided to handicap the damn car out of the factory
It isnt as simple as running 12's when you only trap 107 . And Not all Mustangs are going to run 12's with gears .only thing that means is that they are pulling some helacious 60's. At that trap you would have to be pulling a 1.6-1.7 60 foot time . I was running 108 STOCK and coulda ran a 12 with sticky tires and my LS1 was stock , so I dont think this car is as fast as a LS1 is stock . The tune for 93 may only put it to par w/one . Not dogging the new pony cause I would own one in a sec . Im just putting some reality on the subject. This reminds me of when a few guys got a stock LS1 SS to run 12's " I have even seen it at my loacl track " And all of the sudden every Camaro was a 12 second car Even though some may only run low 13's
.
And I dont think all mustangs are gonna be running low 13's stock . Expect the average to be high 13's.

Looks like the '05 GT with torque management removed will be as fast as an '02 LS1 with no other mods. low-mid 13's@105-106.

Tuned for 93, it'll be faster. High 12s@107-108.

Geared it'll drop to to mid 12s.

Not my fault Ford decided to handicap the damn car out of the factoryI'll withhold judgement on that until I actually see it or some test results.
I believe the 13.4's (and I've heard of other '05's running 13.4's), and I think the car launches extremely efficiently, but I'm not yet sure they'll run 107-108 with a flash tune for 93 eliminating the torque management.
S.

I stay away from most threads like this, and maybe I should stay away from this one as well, but here is a thought or two.

I was at a local shop that specializes in Mustangs helping a fellow dyno tune WOT for a cam/header Z06. While there I heard discussion of this '05 and timeslip deal. Most of the conversation revolved around the numbers, of course, but also the "closing throttle body" thing and what it means to some hidden potential.

I have no doubt the slips are what they are. Nothing taken away from the '05 'stang. However, E-town is a fast SOB. I am to understand the better runs were on a 1.65 sixty footer. That sort of short time with that sort of mile an hour is remarkable. I would think a bit over 300 RWHP would be required to pull that sort of trap, and a bit more still to factor that MPH with a 1.65 sixty.... The gains from the bolt ons are quite good considering most of what I've heard the Mustangs are showing for stock dyno numbers.

These statements that Ford is closing the TB at high RPM, if true, would not lead me to call it "torque management", though opinions might differ, and I could be missing their approch entirely. I would like to see where the torque peaks and how that would correlate, but I tend to doubt it's where the TB is closing. I guess we'll see.

Management of torque and thus trying to avoid any subsequent "abuse" < more intended to limit trans, yoke, diff, axle failure > is easier done with timing retard. Maybe I'd understand it better if I knew where they were supposedly closing the TB, as I said. It could be they are trying to set a rich mix without exceeding the injector capacity they know something about their valves and catalytic converters need to live that we don't.

If it truly is a "save components from failure" measure, I'd want to know what components they saw failing, because throttle closure is a drastic measure usually associated with traction control, not drivetrain durability.

Anyway, IMO, numbers from E-town are a lot like optimistic dynos, more about bragging rights than being useful in the real world.

I've only seen one '05 at the track. It was an automatic with only a couple of hundred miles on it. Still in paper tags :) 13.9@98 And if the TM is as brutal as automatic GTO's, then I can definitely see this car as mid 13's easily. The GTO's that get that toned down or removed are seeing .5 second better ET's.
I can also see the 5spd cars being mid 13's fairly easily. Bone stock, I ran 13.50 in my 96 WS6. Which was quite a bit short of 300rwhp back then.

If it truly is a "save components from failure" measure, I'd want to know what components they saw failing, because throttle closure is a drastic measure usually associated with traction control, not drivetrain durability.
Likely transmissions. We have been dealing with timing retard for 10 years now, and still manage to break stock transmissions more often than most of us would like.

BTW....I have no idea if the TB deal is accurate or not. I could believe it, but cannot vouch for it.

Likely transmissions. We have been dealing with timing retard for 10 years now, and still manage to break stock transmissions more often than most of us would like.

BTW....I have no idea if the TB deal is accurate or not. I could believe it, but cannot vouch for it.

I find it curious, don't you Bob? You are a racer and as we all know racer's figure the obstacles and weigh the penalties or just beef to avoid them. Closing the TB is just plain wierd IMO.

Trans tech has gone backward for the sake of EPA standards which I, as well as you have noted.

I run a Cal in my car designed for T1 SCCA class racing. It's been a been a successful cal. I'm happy with it.

Most "anti- abuse" Cals are designed for stopping the loons that will not lift on wheelhop or to save weak assed automatics that need timing dialed out at shift points.

This notion of shutting the throttlebody near high RPMs is just strange, at least in my knowledge of computer controlled engines which is primarily in the GM way of doing things.

There are so many other ways to go, be it timing retard or injector pulse reductions, when it come to saving parts from over ethusiastic drivers.

I have no doubt the slips are what they are. Nothing taken away from the '05 'stang. However, E-town is a fast SOB. I am to understand the better runs were on a 1.65 sixty footer. That sort of short time with that sort of mile an hour is remarkable. I would think a bit over 300 RWHP would be required to pull that sort of trap, and a bit more still to factor that MPH with a 1.65 sixty.... I'd agree with that. These cars seem to hook well and get down the track pretty efficiently. The car made a tad over 300rwhp...which is probably about where it needs to be for 108mph. Curiously, a car of this weight should pick up ~1mph per 10rwhp. IMO, a bone stock M5 '05 GT should run 103-105mph unless there is something fishy going on with the electronic TB and TPS.
There are those that say E-town is a fast track...IMO, it's "not bad". I personally think Cecil is faster. HRP also is fast. The day of this test was last Monday, as a NJ resident with an office 10 minutes from E-town, I can say that it was definitely not mineshaft air that day. In fact, as I recall, it rained later in the day.
S.

I'd agree with that. These cars seem to hook well and get down the track pretty efficiently. The car made a tad over 300rwhp...which is probably about where it needs to be for 108mph. Curiously, a car of this weight should pick up ~1mph per 10rwhp. IMO, a bone stock M5 '05 GT should run 103-105mph unless there is something fishy going on with the electronic TB and TPS.
There are those that say E-town is a fast track...IMO, it's "not bad". I personally think Cecil is faster. HRP also is fast. The day of this test was last Monday, as a NJ resident with an office 10 minutes from E-town, I can say that it was definitely not mineshaft air that day. In fact, as I recall, it rained later in the day.
S.
I read that the only reason that they trap so low is becasue the gear ratios in the 5 speed transmission are wide after third to up milage .
I agree that the trap should be more like 103 . But the magazine I read said thats the reason it traps so low .

very impressive...new GT might very well be in my near future...1st they need some new wheels...and those bullets arent cutting it either

There are those that say E-town is a fast track...IMO, it's "not bad". I personally think Cecil is faster. HRP also is fast. The day of this test was last Monday, as a NJ resident with an office 10 minutes from E-town, I can say that it was definitely not mineshaft air that day. In fact, as I recall, it rained later in the day.
S.

The rep for E-town stems from an abundance of quick times coming out of there from mags and internet hot shoes. At least, from my experience.

Point is, I figure that if the '05 V8 Mustang dynos stock in the 270 RWHP range, that it's a mid-13 car on a good track with a good shoe and higher times are expected as the talent and the track fall off.

This is no sin nor indictment on the car's abilities. Seems that most anectdotal reports from regular folks from "regular" tracks up to this point are for upper 13's. By the way, I don't see this as as being "dog" territory by any stretch.

I have no "problem" with the new Mustang, beyond never finding the handling that good from my personal context.

I have my questions Yes, questions and maybe a bit of scepticism regarding upper 13 second, 3600 pound cars becoming mid 12 cars with relative ease. The weight and dyno numbers up to this point haven't made that so easy for me to swallow.

It's with the same troubled eye I look at reports of high 11 second passes with stock Z06's.

I'm reminded of the insurance ads on TV that talk about the wonderful way things are in the town of "Perfect". Every time I went road racing, it was not in a town by that name. Seems I was forced to making laps on tracks which were all located in "Reality".

Everyone knows....Atco is the faster track over Etown....
But thats because the track is only 1300 feet, and its down hill...or is that he excuse for Cecil? :D

I find it curious, don't you Bob? You are a racer and as we all know racer's figure the obstacles and weigh the penalties or just beef to avoid them. Closing the TB is just plain wierd IMO.

Trans tech has gone backward for the sake of EPA standards which I, as well as you have noted.

I run a Cal in my car designed for T1 SCCA class racing. It's been a been a successful cal. I'm happy with it.

Most "anti- abuse" Cals are designed for stopping the loons that will not lift on wheelhop or to save weak assed automatics that need timing dialed out at shift points.

This notion of shutting the throttlebody near high RPMs is just strange, at least in my knowledge of computer controlled engines which is primarily in the GM way of doing things.

There are so many other ways to go, be it timing retard or injector pulse reductions, when it come to saving parts from over ethusiastic drivers.
Let me state again that I am in no way sure that this is what is going on - it is only a possibility. It makes sense - shutting the throttle would likely kill more power than just pulling timing.

Obviously I wouldn't like it regardless.

Everyone knows....Atco is the faster track over Etown....
But thats because the track is only 1300 feet, and its down hill...or is that he excuse for Cecil? :D
atcos usually good for another 2-3 tenths...but Englishtown has been gettin better recently from whatever there doing differently