MM&FF '05 Mustang GT...12.4@108mph.

A few months ago, we heard that JDM and MM&FF ran and modded an '05 Mustang GT and came out with some impressive times.
I spoke with Anthony at JDM directly about the car, and he gave me some good info on it. Of course, everybody thought it was lies.
Today, I had an appointment at JDM. Before going there, I stopped at Downs Ford to pick up some intake gaskets. They had the just-on-the-newstand issue of MM&FF on the counter. I grabbed a copy.
The bottom line...
Bone stock, the car went 13.39@102mph on a 1.99 short time.
Their comment was "though the traction control was turned off, it felt as if the car was launched at part throttle."
Bone stock the car made 267rwhp/291rwtq.
Back at JDM, Chris Johnson of SCT used the new Xcalibrator as he "adjusted the drive-by-wire commands by allowing the throttle to remain open during shifts. He increased the timing, added a little fuel..." The car picked up "15 rwhp".
Back at E-town, they went 13.10@105.6mph. They backed it up with a 13.12@106.2 on 1.975 and 2.025 short times.
A week later, the car got a set of 4.30's, underdrive pulleys, Magnaflow mufflers with JDM tips, QA1 rear shocks and a set of Mickey Thompson 17" ET Streets. According to Jim D'Amore, the peak numbers picked up 33rwhp and 25rwtq, with gains of 41rwhp and 37rwtq at 6,000rpm. At E-town, it ran back to back 1.68 short times with a best ET of 12.45@107.92mph. Raceweight was 3,640 with driver.
MM&FF lists the cost of the mods at $2430. I was talking to Jim D'Amore today, and his comment was, "that's a pretty high number" for those mods.
The Xcalibrator can be had with one tune, $350
Magnaflow mufflers with tips, $250
Underdrive pulleys, $190
QA1's, $125 (or Strange 10-ways at $128)
4.30 gears, $190
MT ET Streets, $325
That's $1430 in parts (including tires).
The only real labor need with these parts is mounting/balancing the tires ($15/tire), setting up the gears at around $150 (skill level depending) and maybe welding in the mufflers and tips (~$50). So there's about $250 in labor, for a total still under $1700 including labor.
S.

108mph trap is LS1 speeds.

With the tuning for more fuel and a 4.30 rear I can't imagine highway milage is very good, 17mpg highway at best?? I'll stick with the 28mpg LS1 that can also trap 108mph

At least it shows that engine has some potential. :thumb: I'd like to see how an LS2 GTO would do with the same mods.

"Tuning" is at WOT throttle only, and should have no effect on normal gas mileage.

Gearing does not hurt these motors near as much as one might think. My "bolt-on" 99 Cobra had 4.56 gears, and returned 25+ mpg on the highway driving at ~70 mph (~2600 rpm). My F/S class motor did better than that (it was very efficient).

"Tuning" is at WOT throttle only, and should have no effect on normal gas mileage.

Gearing does not hurt these motors near as much as one might think. My "bolt-on" 99 Cobra had 4.56 gears, and returned 25+ mpg on the highway driving at ~70 mph (~2600 rpm). My F/S class motor did better than that (it was very efficient).

"used the new Xcalibrator as he "adjusted the drive-by-wire commands by allowing the throttle to remain open during shifts, He increased the timing, added a little fuel..."

Yessir. That fuel is added for WOT. It has zero affect when driving around at part-load, part throttle conditions (ie...highway...unless your run down the highway at WOT all the time).

I have an Xcalibrator. The good friend that sold it to me is an SCT dealer and tuner, and lives just a few miles from me. We just tuned my 04 Cobra Thursday. He also tuned my 99. In other words, I'm at least somewhat familier with what is done - though I will never claim to be an expert. :)

With the tuning for more fuel and a 4.30 rear I can't imagine highway milage is very good, 17mpg highway at best?? I'll stick with the 28mpg LS1 that can also trap 108mphYou're guessing. You have no idea what the mileage is when gears and tuning are done. JDM puts out Lightnings with ~650rwhp that get 17mpg (up from 14mpg stock), I doubt this car only gets 17mpg highway.
I'd like to see how an LS2 GTO would do with the same mods.I wonder. But considering a GT can be had, nicely optioned, for ~8-10k less, the GT is a better bang-for-the-buck.
S.

Eh. . . who cares. As previously mentioned, that's stock 1998 LS1 6spd Fbody trapspeed.

Real benefit I see is that you CAN indeed install those gears & a tire, and launch THAT hard. Obviously the 10 bolt in an Fbody will never take that beating, at least in an M6, continuously.

Otherwise, it's really not that impressive.

Mike

Otherwise, it's really not that impressive.

Agreed.

Nice to see Ford has caught up though.

who cares about trap speed,its ET that counts.

who cares about trap speed,its ET that counts.

eh, maybe at the track

actually, i've always been more impresses with higher trap speeds than e.t.'s yes, I know I am in a minority but there are others out there like me. :)

You're guessing. You have no idea what the mileage is when gears and tuning are done. JDM puts out Lightnings with ~650rwhp that get 17mpg (up from 14mpg stock), I doubt this car only gets 17mpg highway.
I wonder. But considering a GT can be had, nicely optioned, for ~8-10k less, the GT is a better bang-for-the-buck.
S.

Yes 17mpg was just a guess, I know people that have put in 4.10s and they killed the highway mpg. I also have a friend with an '03 Cobra and a tuner (can't remember the brand) he lost mpg, but gained power and a smoother running engine, so it is a trade off.

The GT is a great bang for the buck, but fully loaded it is only $4000 shy of a fully loaded GTO that has 100 more hourse power. Think GT vs. Cobra

Yes 17mpg was just a guess, I know people that have put in 4.10s and they killed the highway mpg. I also have a friend with an '03 Cobra and a tuner (can't remember the brand) he lost mpg, but gained power and a smoother running engine, so it is a trade off.That's unusual, because most guys who get a tune get better mileage because the factory programming is pig rich (Cobras). My car was under 11:1 from 3k up. I have no idea what the mileage will be on this modded GT, but 17mpg seems extreme.
The GT is a great bang for the buck, but fully loaded it is only $4000 shy of a fully loaded GTO that has 100 more hourse power. Think GT vs. CobraThat's funny...because I've heard the comparisons of stripped LS1 F-bodies to the loaded '03/'04 Cobras for two years. Now the shoe is on the other foot. A lightly optioned '05 GT can be had for $25,225 in the Deluxe package with an M5. An '05 GTO will be $34,295 with an A4 and $33,690 with an M6. That's at least an $8465 difference.
GTO doesn't quite have 100hp more than the GT. GT's are in the 260-270rwhp range. GTO's are coming in around 330-340rwhp. But still, there is a pretty big difference.

Regardless, I think a very lightly modded '05 GT going 12.4's is impressive.
S.

My stock SS went 13.6@108. 108 MPH for a 12.4 ET is pathetic.

Regardless, I think a very lightly modded '05 GT going 12.4's is impressive.
S.

Light mods eh. Thats ok, most of my Mustang friends would consider the above bone stock.

13.6 for 108mph is pathetic.

All the power in the world doesn't mean anything if it doesn't propel you down the road/track.

That said, Snorman, you have to use the "the Mustang will suck no matter what" mentality. When using that mentality, you will realize that the Mustang is always loaded, and at MSRP or above. Also, the GTO can always be purchased by your brothers sisters cousin on your fathers side twice removed, for $26,000.

Also, in the "Mustang sucks" world, the ET means nothing. It is the mph that determines who wins the race.

Of course, if we are talking about any other vehicle, then this no longer applies. Thus, this is why these are the Mustang Rules. :rolleyes:

My stock SS went 13.6@108. 108 MPH for a 12.4 ET is pathetic.
13.6 for a 108 mph is pathetic.

Wait...she already said that. :D

For that matter, 13.6 for a stock LS1 F-body sucks period.

smackkk....in your opinion, what that is listed is not "light mods"?

All you have to do is put the stock tires back on and its back in the 13's. ET Streets :rolleyes: Geez, on a sub 300rwhp car, ET streets are slicks. The car is far from bone stock.

Well, i dont consider gears a "light" mod but thats just my opinion. Most of the others could be considered light mods individually but when you have every one of them on a car, I dont think its "lightly modded. Especially if you took above car in like that for a warranty claim. Most dealers would laugh.

Oh yeah, lightninggal, ET isnt gonna matter when somebody pulls up next to another on a long stretch of open deserted highway.

I don't think anybody said it was stock, or bone stock. And I agree that ET Streets are very close to slicks.

Well, i dont consider gears a "light" mod but thats just my opinion. Most of the others could be considered light mods individually but when you have every one of them on a car, I dont think its "lightly modded. Especially if you took above car in like that for a warranty claim. Most dealers would laugh.
Certainly we each have our opinions, but gears are a very, very common mod in the Mustang world, and I think quite a few folks would consider them a "light mod", but it is not worth debating.

As for "when you have every one of them on the car I don't think it is lightly modded"....well....I don't know how to reply to that. According to the post, the car had:

A Tune
Underdrive pulleys
Shocks/struts
gears
Tires

I don't see where that list is all that big of a deal, but like the gears thing, I suppose we all have our opinions.

Oh yeah, lightninggal, ET isnt gonna matter when somebody pulls up next to another on a long stretch of open deserted highway.
Hmmm....does it matter when you pull up to a stoplight?

Gears ARE a light mod with an axle that doesnt threaten to break on the first launch on the street in front of the dealer... ;)

Take My CTS-V, with a pcm upgrade, gears, tires, shocks, didn't see if exhaust or a Cold air kit was in the mix, I'll bet my car, and a great deal more brands of cars would fair just as well. That is what makes the HP # very unimpressive.

You know, nowhere in the original post did I see anyone saying "the '05 Mustang GT ran a 12.4@108 with next to no mods and that is the most amazing performance by a street car ever."

For a car that has been out for a few months, that pretty good. I'm impressed. If you are not, then that is your problem. Frankly, if it had run a 10.00 @ 135 with the only mod being a K&N filter........... I don't think that the Mustang haters here would be impressed.

Hmmmm........... I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of talking about modding a $50,000, 4-door, limited production Cadillac has to this discussion of a $25,000 Pony car.

Maybe its just me.

I think we can all agree that the trap speed isn't all that impressive but DAYUM I wish my 98 came with the rear-end of the new GT's!

Mid-low 12's on a stock rear on E/T with gears..I bet that rear could take 11's and not snap!! :bow: :bow:

You have to look at everything in perspective. A Lightning is a streetlight terror, and will run very low ET's with very low mph. The Mustang is also very good off the line, with lower horsepower. Thus, this is my perspective.

The F-body crowd is just used to running fair ET's with very high mph. If all you do on the street is race from 50+, I can understand your perspective. However, the reality of the situation is that most street races are from a light (unless street racing has changed that much in the years that I have not been participating), and this is where the Mustangs ability to really utilize the horsepower they have (as in they launch real good) comes into play. Mustangs have always been very good at the "stoplight drags" because they are very fast out of the hole, and are very fast in the quarter with alot less hp.

I'm sure alot of this has to do with the fact that they have always had a very strong rear axle, so they are set up to launch from the factory. Even the 28-spline 8.8's in the previous Mustangs would make the Camaro's 7.5" 10-bolt look like a toothpick. The current 31-spline 8.8 is just icing on the cake.

Hmmm....does it matter when you pull up to a stoplight?

Not really, I dont see many cars riding around on ET streets.

Oh well, i will agree if you are looking for a new car, it is probably the best performance vs $$$ option available right now.

Hmmmm........... I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of talking about modding a $50,000, 4-door, limited production Cadillac has to this discussion of a $25,000 Pony car.

Its not just the car its the motor. If you can't see the relevance, i guess I will have to spell it out for you. The point I was making is that you can take any comparible performance car, add those mods and get the same results.

You know, nowhere in the original post did I see anyone saying "the '05 Mustang GT ran a 12.4@108 with next to no mods and that is the most amazing performance by a street car ever."

Your right, kinda hard to call it amazing when it is just now reaching the level of a 98 Camaro in performance. If a bone stock Z-28 has hit a bunch of 12.9's what do you think the mods the mustang had would have done for the Camaro?

For a car that has been out for a few months, that pretty good. I'm impressed. If you are not, then that is your problem. Frankly, if it had run a 10.00 @ 135 with the only mod being a K&N filter........... I don't think that the Mustang haters here would be impressed.

Don't know why you assume that being unimpressed with somthing that is the leading story and plastered on the cover of the leading mustang rag means that I or anyone else is a Mustang hater. I kinda like the car, but I would not boast about its performance or how well it takes to mods for my reasons stated above.

As for your last post you refer to low end torque, which I beleive the LT1 and LS1 both had more than the current mustang, so you are wrong on that count. The reason this mustang ran the time with that trap is because of the radical, very unstreet friendly gears. I too owned a Lightning (white 01) and that truck had low end torque and gearing for stoplight brawls. It drove exactly like my 87GN in stock trim (Lightning was problably 3 or 4 tenths faster). The reason I did not like the lightning is it fell flat on its face after about 100mph. You know what I mean (unless the 94 in ur SN refers to a 94 L) If you punch it from 80mph cruise on the highway, the blower is useless.

I'm sure alot of this has to do with the fact that they have always had a very strong rear axle, so they are set up to launch from the factory. Even the 28-spline 8.8's in the previous Mustangs would make the Camaro's 7.5" 10-bolt look like a toothpick. The current 31-spline 8.8 is just icing on the cake

A stronger rear does not make you launch any better. It may help keep you from breaking, but how it helps a launch you will have to enlighten me.

Wow i sense some anger in this post by the ford fans. Honestly, what did you expect, everyone on a GM based board to praise the mighty stang? Come on. And my comments to this thread. MM&FF gets THE best possible times out of every car they test. Remember they tested an ls1 to 12.89. In the real world, driven by a real driver, at a track other than e-town its gonna run high 12s, possibly even low 13s. I am not overly impressed, but ill give it its props.

Didn't the LS2 in the vette with similar/less mods (slicks, tuning, high-flow cats, stock mufflers, and?) run mid/low 11's? If I could just remember where I saw that. Im just saying, someone in here said its "nice to see the Mustang catch-up" or whatever, they only caught up to years past, obviously, the LS2 is still ahead of the new 3V SOHC 4.6. I imagine the GTO would do similar to the Vette, at least better than the Mustang with the similar mods. Though the GTO may be more expensive, as the Vette also will be, I say its worth it, mustangs are going to be EVERYWHERE, won't be able to turn the corner without seeing one, all this retro makes me sick :cry: . But its nice to see a mustang that consistently runs in the 13's for once (bone stock that is).

actually, i've always been more impresses with higher trap speeds than e.t.'s yes, I know I am in a minority but there are others out there like me. :)

I agree. To me a higher trap speed means a much more fun car to drive. A good E.T. with a low trap means that you need to launch the crap out of a car everytime you drive it to get good numbers. (think EVO and Sti). A good trap speed is more indicative of HP, and a good E.T. is just how good you make use of that HP.

That said, the Mustang GT looks to be very respectable. I like the looks too.

My thoughts.

Dan

You have to look at everything in perspective. A Lightning is a streetlight terror, and will run very low ET's with very low mph. The Mustang is also very good off the line, with lower horsepower. Thus, this is my perspective.

The F-body crowd is just used to running fair ET's with very high mph. If all you do on the street is race from 50+, I can understand your perspective.

Try anything over about 10 mph. It's only from a dead stop that a car with a great E.T. for it's trap speed has an advantage. Once it's moving, it can't make use of that great 60' time.

Dan

Try anything over about 10 mph. It's only from a dead stop that a car with a great E.T. for it's trap speed has an advantage. Once it's moving, it can't make use of that great 60' time.

Dan

I think 10 mph is still a little low..we all get sideways if we punch it at 10 mph..an evo will not.

4.30s are not a "radical, very unstreet friendly gears" in a N/A Mod Motor. In fact, it is a very common gear for the modded Mustang. For the 05 GT, that gear nets you ~2500 rpm @ 70 mph.

Back at JDM, Chris Johnson of SCT used the new Xcalibrator as he "adjusted the drive-by-wire commands by allowing the throttle to remain open during shifts. He increased the timing, added a little fuel..." The car picked up "15 rwhp".
Back at E-town, they went 13.10@105.6mph. They backed it up with a 13.12@106.2 on 1.975 and 2.025 short times.


These are really good numbers. Of course, mags like MM&FF and GMHTP always get better times than the mainstream mags, for various reasons.

Would this Xcalibrator void the warranty, do you think?

These are really good numbers. Of course, mags like MM&FF and GMHTP always get better times than the mainstream mags, for various reasons.

Would this Xcalibrator void the warranty, do you think?Yeah...they are.
It's pretty funny, with all the whining and excuse making about the car going 12.4, everybody seems to forget that it went 13.1 at over 106mph with nothing more than a reflashed PCM. This is probably about as quick as that $50k CTS-V and pretty much on-par with an LS1 F-body (which both require premium fuel).
I'm sure the reflash was for 93-octane since the stock programming is for 87.
It's also quicker (albeit, only 2/10ths and 1-2mph) than GMHTP went in an '04 GTO.

There is no external sign that the PCM was reflashed. So it would be up to the dealer to "scan" the PCM to see if the parameters had been changed. Also, the Xcalibrator records the VIN with the stock programming (it stores the stock programming, along with 1, 2 or 3 custom tunes). The stock programming can be easily flashed back to the PCM if it's a concern.

I'll bet we'll see 12-second '05 GT's with nothing more than a reflashed PCM in the next few months.
S.

Stock (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=541962) (well...that pesky emission filter removed) '05 GT...13.3@103mph.
Wonder what he's going to run with a reflashed PCM...12's?
S.

[QUOTE=Snorman]
The bottom line...
Bone stock, the car went 13.39@102mph on a 1.99 short time.

I don't want to start a "bash the new mustang post" because personally I like the new stang. However I haven't seen these times at the track. I watched 4 different 05 GT's run at the track and the best time I've seen is 14.02 @99 mph. Now I know driver, track prep, and transmission have alot to do with everything but I won't believe this car is pulling these times until I see it.

[QUOTE=Snorman]
The bottom line...
Bone stock, the car went 13.39@102mph on a 1.99 short time.

I don't want to start a "bash the new mustang post" because personally I like the new stang. However I haven't seen these times at the track. I watched 4 different 05 GT's run at the track and the best time I've seen is 14.02 @99 mph. Now I know driver, track prep, and transmission have alot to do with everything but I won't believe this car is pulling these times until I see it.


Simply put,Those people cannot drive. OR they have not learned the car yet.
A guy I know has a 01 L that has 3K worth of mods. His best time was 13.36. MM&FF gets that on most bone stockers.

Also on another note, When swapping to a 4.30 gear your MPH will drop in your ET, Not go up.
And if you go from a roll, You will still have more "punch" then if you had stock gears. Even though "going from a roll" is freakin' STUPID. :rolleyes:
The most "unfair" way of racing. :tdwn:

[QUOTE=00Z28SS]
Also on another note, When swapping to a 4.30 gear your MPH will drop in your ET, Not go up.
And if you go from a roll, You will still have more "punch" then if you had stock gears. Even though "going from a roll" is freakin' STUPID. :rolleyes:
The most "unfair" way of racing. :tdwn:

Not true about switching to 4.30's. Look at it this way, with stock gears it may have been @ ~5000rpms going through the traps. With 4.30's, it may be using the entire power band, thus it results in harder acceleration in the 2nd half. An fbody going from 3.42's to 4.10's typically gains 1.5 - 2mph in the 1/4.

In any case, I like the blown 03 cobras cuz they are fast, and can go really fast w/ easy bolt-ons.

On a side note, my friend, (total non car guy) had a 1999 2.73 geared A4 Z28. On a cold day with nothing more than a used aftermarket air lid, he went 13.2@107mph. (1/2 tank of gas and spare & jack in place!) Stock RSA's with 35psi all around, too!

I don't care what the rest of you Camaro people say, a 12.4 is damn impressive for those mods, regardless of trap speed. Everybody talks about how the 108 is finally to '98 Camaro trap speeds but I don't think I've ever heard of a '98 Camaro running that quick at that mph unless it was an A4 with a big stall. It took me 5 mph more than that to get that in my M6 and I'm a damn good driver (1.90 60ft on Eagle GSC's). On top of that I have to worry about my fragile as glass 10 bolt breaking or pony up $2300 for a 12 bolt. :mad:

Maybe I just see things differently because I started with an LT1 which was no trap speed terror. It still ran the numbers though and it still put an ass whoopin on many LS1 cars that trapped higher. I find more satisfaction in getting the best ET out of a given trap speed than running a 12.5 @ 120 mph.

That being said, I still don't want a Mustang for the simple fact that if Ford had the nerve to build a computer nanny into the car to make sure you don't beat on it, I don't think dealers are going to be too receptive to fixing things that were broken on even a lightly modded car. :( I think I'd pick up a used, out of warranty '03-04 Cobra in a couple years instead. :)

There is more to 430 gears being un-street friendly than final rpm at a certain mph IMHO. Put an 8 speed in there and you can problably do 80 at 1500rpm's. Its fuel econemy and it drivability. You have to throw alot more shifts, and the car is more jerky during shifts.

13.1@106+ with nothing more than a flash tune.
That's just about as quick as a stock, $50k CTS-v and an LS1 F-body.
The gears aren't even needed for that.
S.

Impressive to say the least

Also on another note, When swapping to a 4.30 gear your MPH will drop in your ET, Not go up
My racing experience shows just the opposite. Even with 3.55s and a broader powerband, the 4.6 3V is still way under-geared. A step up to 4.10 or 4.30 is going to improve both ET and MPH (assuming traction).


There is more to 430 gears being un-street friendly than final rpm at a certain mph IMHO. Put an 8 speed in there and you can problably do 80 at 1500rpm's. Its fuel econemy and it drivability. You have to throw alot more shifts, and the car is more jerky during shifts.
*sigh*

What cars have you ever had, as daily drivers, that have had 4.30, 4.56, or (perish the thought) 4.88 gears? Are you speaking from experience, or hear-say?

Based on your experience, what kind of mileage difference did you see between the stock 3.27/3.55 and the aftermarket gears mentioned above?

Based on your experience, how many extra times do you have to shift your 5 speed transmission when running from a dead stop to, say, 65 mph with stock gears and with 4.30+?

Is it possible that when slowing your car, you won't have to downshift as often with a low gear? Does that not make a difference?

In short: You may indeed lose some gas mileage. My experience with steep gears in mod motors is that the loss of mileage is minimal - most especially around town (less load on the motor when accelerating). My experience also shows that the amount of times you shift is virtually the same - perhaps even less, because as I stated above, with a steep gear, around town you can often stay in 4th gear from 25 mph to 50 mph with no shifting at all. You don't need 1st gear until you are at a complete stop. 5th gear becomes a much better passing gear, reducing the need to downshift when passing.

I have no idea how steep gears make the car more "jerky".

After all that, if you wish to stick by your guns, knock yourself out. Those silly Mustang drivers will likely continue to use those "insane" gears. And somehow manage to live with em, get decent mileage with em, and love em in general.

I had an 85 Iroc with stock gears and bought an 87 with 411's. I got about 4pmg less, and constantly had to make and extra shift. I'm still wondering why in daily driving you would downshift a car. Brake replacement is alot easier cheaper than using the extra gas downshifting and alot less stress on the driveline. So why doesn't any auto manufacturer even use 411's if the 430s have great drivability and minimal fuel milage loss?

What was the redline of your 87 IROC's 5.0/5.7? How efficient was the motor? Where did it make its peak torque?

There is no "extra shift" with steeper gears. It doesn't exist.

Extra gas downshifting? Ok.

To an auto manufacturer, even 1 mpg is incredibly important. To the average enthusiast, it is not. Also, NVH impacts are a potential issue.

I suppose we can agree to disagree. I certainly wouldn't have 4.30 gears in any of the cars in your sig.

I had an 85 Iroc with stock gears and bought an 87 with 411's. I got about 4pmg less, and constantly had to make and extra shift. Just curious...did you just compare two completely different cars based solely on the fact that one had 4.11's to try and prove your point?
I would imagine there are actually other benefits to more gear. Less clutch and shift mechanism wear due to decreased gear changes/shifting among them.
I'm not exactly sure how you could possibly quantify that the "extra gas" from downshifting is more expensive than brake replacement...but okay.

BTW...did I mention that the car didn't even need gears, pulleys or exhaust to run 13.1 at over 106mph?
S.

BTW...did I mention that the car didn't even need gears, pulleys or exhaust to run 13.1 at over 106mph?
S.
No, I don't think you did. Maybe you should say what kind of cars that is comparable to.

Hey! i think that is comparable to a LS1 F-body or a CTS-V!!!! :D

I have to say it is impressive though.

TONY

BTW...did I mention that the car didn't even need gears, pulleys or exhaust to run 13.1 at over 106mph?
S.

What does "over" 106 mean? Like 108, or 106.5? Just curious.

106.2mph.
They made two passes like that.
Unless you're a "trap speed racer", the 13.1 is more important.
S.

106.2mph.
They made two passes like that.
Unless you're a "trap speed racer", the 13.1 is more important.
S.

As I neither drag race or stop light race..the trap speed means more to me when comparing the four cars I am considering.

(current LS1...05 GTO...05 GT...04 Cobra)

For the record..that trap speed *is good* im my books if it got that with just tuning.

But that 13.1 is highly impressive..what I really think is that the Mustang GT has been for over a decade really slow when compared with the F-body and the "civic of the V8 world" and with this one it actually isn't slow so it may take time for the automotive world to get used to it.

106.2mph.
They made two passes like that.
Unless you're a "trap speed racer", the 13.1 is more important.
S.

13.1@106mph w/ just a tune is impressive. . .equal to a 1998 M6 Fbody IMO.
:)

On a side note, I will say that it surprises me the amount of people I talk to who think that the new Mustang GT is such a huge bang for the buck.

I feel like asking "Did you not know about the 1998-2002 LS1 Fbodies?"

I guess that's a testament to Ford's advertising campaign for the new Stang.

Mike

You have to look at everything in perspective. A Lightning is a streetlight terror, and will run very low ET's with very low mph. The Mustang is also very good off the line, with lower horsepower. Thus, this is my perspective.

The F-body crowd is just used to running fair ET's with very high mph. If all you do on the street is race from 50+, I can understand your perspective. However, the reality of the situation is that most street races are from a light (unless street racing has changed that much in the years that I have not been participating), and this is where the Mustangs ability to really utilize the horsepower they have (as in they launch real good) comes into play. Mustangs have always been very good at the "stoplight drags" because they are very fast out of the hole, and are very fast in the quarter with alot less hp.

I'm sure alot of this has to do with the fact that they have always had a very strong rear axle, so they are set up to launch from the factory. Even the 28-spline 8.8's in the previous Mustangs would make the Camaro's 7.5" 10-bolt look like a toothpick. The current 31-spline 8.8 is just icing on the cake.



well said

On a side note, I will say that it surprises me the amount of people I talk to who think that the new Mustang GT is such a huge bang for the buck.

I feel like asking "Did you not know about the 1998-2002 LS1 Fbodies?"
I think it is safe to say that the "bang for the buck" moniker is being applied to a car that you can purchase new, off the lot, today - vice something used.

If you want to consider used cars, then you would have to go back and consider a fox-body 5.0, which is one of the "bang for the buck" kings - at least in its day. And then you would have to consider the......well....you get the point - it would become never-ending. :)

I think it is safe to say that the "bang for the buck" moniker is being applied to a car that you can purchase new, off the lot, today - vice something used.

If you want to consider used cars, then you would have to go back and consider a fox-body 5.0, which is one of the "bang for the buck" kings - at least in its day. And then you would have to consider the......well....you get the point - it would become never-ending. :)

The Ferrari Enzo is easily the best bang for the buck...

when compared to how much the Mclaran F1 cost back in 97.

The 5.0 Foxes and 1st gen DSM's are easily the best bang for the back if you want to go fast and age of car isn't part of the equation.

I will get flamed for this..but IMO...the best bang for the buck for strait line performance is the skittle. 21k car...1500 dollars later you run low 13's w/ a factory warranty is hard to beat..then if you spend another 2k you will be running mid-low 12's with close to 120mph trap speeds.

The mph is impressive with the reflash but the ET isn't. I went 13.1@104.9 in my 96 WS6 back in early 97, still on stock tires. There is more ET left in that with a good launch. Now that would be impressive.

But all this arguing is a flash back to 86-87. The Mustang/GN wars sound like the same thing now as the Mustang/GTO wars. Mustang could be had for several thousands less than either and run close to the same times stock vs. stock. Lots of LX Mustangs sold because they were cheap and fast. You can say the same thing about the GT now. But the extra money cars were better cars, IMHO. Not just because I've owned both ;) But better quality of a car. So its either buy cheap and go fast or buy more expensive car and go fast. Either will get you there but its how they get you there.

And 4.30 gears aren't that bad in a Mustang. Its almost saying that 4.10 gears are way over geared in an F-Body. Just another normal mod.

The 12.4 ET is extremely impressive given the 108mph. That is one launching mofo :eek:

I think it is safe to say that the "bang for the buck" moniker is being applied to a car that you can purchase new, off the lot, today - vice something used.

If you want to consider used cars, then you would have to go back and consider a fox-body 5.0, which is one of the "bang for the buck" kings - at least in its day. And then you would have to consider the......well....you get the point - it would become never-ending. :)

I agree. What I meant, was, the people who mention the 2005 GT to me, never mentioned LS1 Fbodies to me as great bangs for the buck when they were still new.

They talk about the 2005 Stang as if a car with that much performance was *NEVER* available for ~$25k until it came along.

That's unusual, because most guys who get a tune get better mileage because the factory programming is pig rich (Cobras). My car was under 11:1 from 3k up. I have no idea what the mileage will be on this modded GT, but 17mpg seems extreme.

He told me he did the most aggressive tune he could, He also has a pulley. I know there was a few recalls or service bulletins for the '03 Cobras for PCM flashes, I don't know how that effects it as far as which stock tune is better for mileage & performance.

That's funny...because I've heard the comparisons of stripped LS1 F-bodies to the loaded '03/'04 Cobras for two years. Now the shoe is on the other foot. A lightly optioned '05 GT can be had for $25,225 in the Deluxe package with an M5. An '05 GTO will be $34,295 with an A4 and $33,690 with an M6. That's at least an $8465 difference.
GTO doesn't quite have 100hp more than the GT. GT's are in the 260-270rwhp range. GTO's are coming in around 330-340rwhp. But still, there is a pretty big difference.

Regardless, I think a very lightly modded '05 GT going 12.4's is impressive.
S.

If you want to play that way you can get an LS1 '04 GTO for $26K+ after the rebate game that wil put down 300RWHP. :D Unfortunatly for the GTO and Cobra there is no "stripped" model. The USA built 2008 GTO should have a better price range. I've also seen a few GTOs dynoing about 350-rwhp, factor in 15% drivetrain loss and the LS2 GTO is putting down 100HP at the crank more than the GT.

I'll agree that 12.4 is impressive for the GT, but did the article have times for stock tire??? Slicks are kind of cheating to me, I'll never use them. I like to see what cars can do when they are setup for street driving. I'm never going to pull up next to someone in slicks on the street.

I agree. What I meant, was, the people who mention the 2005 GT to me, never mentioned LS1 Fbodies to me as great bangs for the buck when they were still new.

They talk about the 2005 Stang as if a car with that much performance was *NEVER* available for ~$25k until it came along.
That's silly (not you - them). IMHO, one of the best EVER bang for the buck cars was a stripper LS1 Z28/Formula. They were the 5.0 of their day - only faster.

...I'll agree that 12.4 is impressive for the GT, but did the article have times for stock tire???

Yes....from Snorman's original post:

The bottom line...
Bone stock, the car went 13.39@102mph on a 1.99 short time.
Their comment was "though the traction control was turned off, it felt as if the car was launched at part throttle."
:)

Yes....from Snorman's original post:


I'm just guessing, but I think he meant with the 4.30 gears and other mods.

But IMHO that is pretty pointless since it would probably be worse than stock with that gear ratio..no chance in hell it would hook up to a sub 2 second 60 footer.

Yes....from Snorman's original post:


:)

I wasn't looking for the stock times. I want to know what it can run with all the mods and stock tires, or at least upgraded street tires.

Sorry, don't know. Quite possible they didn't even bother with stock tires once the mods started. However, from the MPH, you can likely infer a high 12 or very low 13.

Gloveperson....perhaps, perhaps not. Sometimes it is easier to launch with those gears because you can leave at low rpm and let the gear pull you out.

Of course, that is all assumption and conjecture on my part.

He told me he did the most aggressive tune he could, He also has a pulley. I know there was a few recalls or service bulletins for the '03 Cobras for PCM flashes, I don't know how that effects it as far as which stock tune is better for mileage & performance.Ford had a reflash TSB for cars due to "the stall". Some of the earlier cars experienced it, and if the car is in for service, dealers have been known to relash the PCM without informing the customer except on the service invoice.
If you want to play that way you can get an LS1 '04 GTO for $26K+ after the rebate game that wil put down 300RWHP. :D Unfortunatly for the GTO and Cobra there is no "stripped" model.If you want to play that way...I can probably still find new '04 Cobras on dealer lots that'll make 360-380rwhp and trounce an LS1 GTO. It's yet to be determined if an '05 GTO can hang with us.
The USA built 2008 GTO should have a better price range.In '06, Ford will be selling an '07 Cobra. We'll be comparing that to GTO, not the base model Mustang GT. I'm not sure the GTO is going to fair very well unless GM puts the LS7 in it.
I've also seen a few GTOs dynoing about 350-rwhp, factor in 15% drivetrain loss and the LS2 GTO is putting down 100HP at the crank more than the GT.I haven't seen one near 350rwhp. I've seen claims of ~320, 330 and 340rwhp for the LS2 cars.
I'll agree that 12.4 is impressive for the GT, but did the article have times for stock tire??? Slicks are kind of cheating to me, I'll never use them. I like to see what cars can do when they are setup for street driving. I'm never going to pull up next to someone in slicks on the street.No mods, stock tires, reflashed PCM...13.1@106.2 on a 2.025 short time. Doesn't seem like an impressive 60ft. to me, I'll bet we'll see somebody put one in the 12's with an SCT flashed PCM.
S.

A few months ago, we heard that JDM and MM&FF ran and modded an '05 Mustang GT and came out with some impressive times.
I spoke with Anthony at JDM directly about the car, and he gave me some good info on it. Of course, everybody thought it was lies.
Today, I had an appointment at JDM. Before going there, I stopped at Downs Ford to pick up some intake gaskets. They had the just-on-the-newstand issue of MM&FF on the counter. I grabbed a copy.
The bottom line...
Bone stock, the car went 13.39@102mph on a 1.99 short time.
Their comment was "though the traction control was turned off, it felt as if the car was launched at part throttle."
Bone stock the car made 267rwhp/291rwtq.
Back at JDM, Chris Johnson of SCT used the new Xcalibrator as he "adjusted the drive-by-wire commands by allowing the throttle to remain open during shifts. He increased the timing, added a little fuel..." The car picked up "15 rwhp".
Back at E-town, they went 13.10@105.6mph. They backed it up with a 13.12@106.2 on 1.975 and 2.025 short times.
A week later, the car got a set of 4.30's, underdrive pulleys, Magnaflow mufflers with JDM tips, QA1 rear shocks and a set of Mickey Thompson 17" ET Streets. According to Jim D'Amore, the peak numbers picked up 33rwhp and 25rwtq, with gains of 41rwhp and 37rwtq at 6,000rpm. At E-town, it ran back to back 1.68 short times with a best ET of 12.45@107.92mph. Raceweight was 3,640 with driver.
MM&FF lists the cost of the mods at $2430. I was talking to Jim D'Amore today, and his comment was, "that's a pretty high number" for those mods.
The Xcalibrator can be had with one tune, $350
Magnaflow mufflers with tips, $250
Underdrive pulleys, $190
QA1's, $125 (or Strange 10-ways at $128)
4.30 gears, $190
MT ET Streets, $325
That's $1430 in parts (including tires).
The only real labor need with these parts is mounting/balancing the tires ($15/tire), setting up the gears at around $150 (skill level depending) and maybe welding in the mufflers and tips (~$50). So there's about $250 in labor, for a total still under $1700 including labor.
S.Let the manufacturers end of the year rebates ROLL! :bow:

That's silly (not you - them). IMHO, one of the best EVER bang for the buck cars was a stripper LS1 Z28/Formula. They were the 5.0 of their day - only faster.Definitely. Mine was only $19,800 tax, title and plates included. :eek: :bow:

Quote:
In '06, Ford will be selling an '07 Cobra. We'll be comparing that to GTO, not the base model Mustang GT. I'm not sure the GTO is going to fair very well unless GM puts the LS7 in it.

why not talk about cars u guys actually own instead of comparing cars that aren't even out yet? such an annoying conversation :P

:barf::barf::barf:

Hmmm....guess we shouldn't talk about the 5th Gen RWD Chevy Coupe either. I mean, after all, nobody here owns one, and it isn't even out yet.

So annoying.


:metal:

why not talk about cars u guys actually own instead of comparing cars that aren't even out yet? such an annoying conversation :P

:barf::barf::barf:

Maybe that's discussed here because that's the nature of this section. Being annoyed is a bother, for certain. However; this is a section that discusses "future" vehicles... as in not yet in production...

It's somewhat akin to being annoyed at the cold weather at the winter olympic games... ;)

No mods, stock tires, reflashed PCM...13.1@106.2 on a 2.025 short time. Doesn't seem like an impressive 60ft. to me, I'll bet we'll see somebody put one in the 12's with an SCT flashed PCM.
S.


Last summer I said 12s with nuthin but a reflash. I'm sure it'll be soon.

Last summer I said 12s with nuthin but a reflash. I'm sure it'll be soon.

The only thing that would concern me with reflashing to eliminate throttle management or tq. management would be wondering why it's there in the first place.

Might well be longevity issue for driveline parts.

Some "abuse" programming is in place because some owners just don't understand the concept of lifting the damn throttle in a wheel-hop situation. Shock is a lot more hard on driveline parts than HP or Torque. Abuse management is usually "idiot proofing".

As for the notion that Ford's cal is exceptionally intrusive is pause for questions...

Horsepower sells..

0-60 and 1/4 mile time sell vehicles to a market segment. A manufacturer would usually you go for 98% - 99% aggressive if the parts can handle it.

If the parts really can't hack it, you would dial a lot more out.

Some folks know the risks and take them, which is no big deal. Most have no idea and end up grenading parts.

I seriously doubt Ford just wanted to make the aftermarket money by calibrating the way they did.

I would imagine an 05 Mustang taking an LS1 off the line, but after that it's all LS1.

The only thing that would concern me with reflashing to eliminate throttle management or tq. management would be wondering why it's there in the first place.

Might well be longevity issue for driveline parts.

Some "abuse" programming is in place because some owners just don't understand the concept of lifting the damn throttle in a wheel-hop situation. Shock is a lot more hard on driveline parts than HP or Torque. Abuse management is usually "idiot proofing".

As for the notion that Ford's cal is exceptionally intrusive is pause for questions...

Horsepower sells..

0-60 and 1/4 mile time sell vehicles to a market segment. A manufacturer would usually you go for 98% - 99% aggressive if the parts can handle it.

If the parts really can't hack it, you would dial a lot more out.

Some folks know the risks and take them, which is no big deal. Most have no idea and end up grenading parts.

I seriously doubt Ford just wanted to make the aftermarket money by calibrating the way they did.

Yes to everything. I agree. I think it is nothing more than a strategy to control warranty claim costs. You see the same thing with the LS2. We're approaching HP levels where stuff breaks, and the cost to make it not break w/o tq management makes the car unprofitable.

4.30s are not a "radical, very unstreet friendly gears" in a N/A Mod Motor. In fact, it is a very common gear for the modded Mustang. For the 05 GT, that gear nets you ~2500 rpm @ 70 mph.

I couldn't help but laugh at all the RPM whining... I think my little turd churns a little over 3k @ 70 :lol:

I've been thinking...

Does Ford pack a lot of this potential into the car intentionally so as to "boost" its aftermarket apeal and thus to avoid situations such as those encountered by the 350Z where one possibly loses HP w/ items such as cat back exhausts, etc... I'm not implying that they do so to necessarily turn a profit, but rather to hype it up so speak. "All I have is a tune and I'm running 12s"

Torque Management comes to mind :think:

Edit: or perhaps it's simply a side effect of trying to save some $$ on warranty parts...

Anyhow, I love seeing cars with these kind of results (ie: improvement over stock) after minimal mods.

Yes to everything. I agree. I think it is nothing more than a strategy to control warranty claim costs. You see the same thing with the LS2. We're approaching HP levels where stuff breaks, and the cost to make it not break w/o tq management makes the car unprofitable.


Yup. It's cost savings in the warranty area, simple as that. If by chance there's a weak link in the stang drivetrain, the aftermarket will step in very enthusiastically.

Modded '03/'04 Cobras snap half shafts. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows the fix. Simple.

I've been thinking...

Does Ford pack a lot of this potential into the car intentionally so as to "boost" its aftermarket apeal and thus to avoid situations such as those encountered by the 350Z where one possibly loses HP w/ items such as cat back exhausts, etc... I'm not implying that they do so to necessarily turn a profit, but rather to hype it up so speak. "All I have is a tune and I'm running 12s"

I don't know. Ford did go mild with the compression and the overall tune of the motor, that's for sure. I know the Mustang aftermarket is the biggest in the industry as far as $$$ spent (stang owners spend over $800 million a year on the aftermarket) and so it would suck if Ford tuned it to the max to the point where most aftermarket additions would equal a loss in power like the 350z you mentioned.

More than anything, i think they did it to give the higher performance varients like possible 350+hp Mach-1 breathing room (wouldn't want GT too close) and perhaps room for the GT to grow on in the upcoming years if they decide to up the hp a little bit.

13.1@106+ with nothing more than a flash tune.
That's just about as quick as a stock, $50k CTS-v and an LS1 F-body.
The gears aren't even needed for that.
S.

Ummmmmm... what a comparison...CTS-V or Mustang GT? I think I will keep my CTS-V. You think I purchased my CTS-V over the Mustang or woudl even consider purchasing a Mustang? The Mustang was NEVER in the picture!!! :rolleyes:

Ummmmmm... what a comparison...CTS-V or Mustang GT? I think I will keep my CTS-V. You think I purchased my CTS-V over the Mustang or woudl even consider purchasing a Mustang? The Mustang was NEVER in the picture!!! :rolleyes:You're missing the point.
A CTS-V owner in this thread compared it to the '05 GT regarding stock and modded performance.
Why that comparison was even made is beyond me.
A 4-door luxury sport touring sedan vs. a 2-door 2+2 pony car/sport coupe.
:rolleyes:
S.

You're missing the point.
A CTS-V owner in this thread compared it to the '05 GT regarding stock and modded performance.
Why that comparison was even made is beyond me.
A 4-door luxury sport touring sedan vs. a 2-door 2+2 pony car/sport coupe.
:rolleyes:
S.

Agreed...hopefully the new Mustang will be good for Ford...they need it. I know they lost me on the GT with the dealer markups, and production/engineering problems. Waiting for a 06 Z06 now :)

LOL....Hmmm....will dealers mark up Z06s when they first come out?

Ya think? :)

LOL....Hmmm....will dealers mark up Z06s when they first come out?

Ya think? :)
Nah, its not like they're in it for the money or anything :p

They're not as bad as those ooga booga Ford guys, who told me the other day that they cant sell me a Mustang GT at MSRP til winter, fall soonest. :alert:

LOL....Hmmm....will dealers mark up Z06s when they first come out?

Ya think? :)

The real question is will folks pay the markup?

Something is only worth what folks will pay, not for what folks want to charge.

Automobiles are always a buyer's market.

The real question is will folks pay the markup?

Something is only worth what folks will pay, not for what folks want to charge.

Automobiles are always a buyer's market.This is almost a question not even worth asking.
There will be people standing in line to pay markups over MSRP.
If you think they won't, you're crazy.
Maybe after a few months, they'll drop...but initially, yes.
I remember the days of $100k ZR1's (remember the old AutoWeek tabloid? They were in there every week for over 6-figures!), $75k Prowlers and $45k Cobras.
They'll get markups, and people will pay it.
S.

This is almost a question not even worth asking.
There will be people standing in line to pay markups over MSRP.
If you think they won't, you're crazy.
Maybe after a few months, they'll drop...but initially, yes.
I remember the days of $100k ZR1's (remember the old AutoWeek tabloid? They were in there every week for over 6-figures!), $75k Prowlers and $45k Cobras.
They'll get markups, and people will pay it.
S.

I agree, but I don't know why it irritates people so much. The added profit is easy to avoid. . . Don't buy until you get your price.

I'll likely get a C6 Z06, but I wouldn't pay a vigorous markup... hell, I wouldn't pay MSRP, but I don't expect a dealer to make nothing either. I never have and have no plans to start.

I look at it this way. The upcomming Z06 will be an excellent sports/GT. But...if I have to wait a bit I can certainly "suffer" my way through with what I'm already driving.

LOL....Hmmm....will dealers mark up Z06s when they first come out?

Ya think? :)

I am already guarnteed at or below MRSP at my dealer.

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=540782&highlight=jms the 05 has already been put into the mid 12's with few mods...already done... :D

I am already guarnteed at or below MRSP at my dealer.
Cool! However, I'll bet you dimes to dollars that many dealers will mark em up substantially, and many folks will pay it. Not I, and obviously not you, but others will.

I am already guarnteed at or below MRSP at my dealer.

I certainly hope you have that in writing.

The way it has worked lately, for many people.............. no contract in writing, and the dealership decides to sell to the highest bidder............. or with the highest "market adjustment."

They seem to be very good at "forgetting" those handshake deals.

I certainly hope you have that in writing.

The way it has worked lately, for many people.............. no contract in writing, and the dealership decides to sell to the highest bidder............. or with the highest "market adjustment."

They seem to be very good at "forgetting" those handshake deals.

I am getting two Escalades at the same time which is why they are doing it.

I'm sure I'll be branded a mustang hater for this, but here goes:

I've heard all sorts of hype about this car. 12.4@XXX is GREAT. Getting there.... we'll just see about that. There are so many variables it's disgusting. And all these little wars that everyone has. The typical smack talking is to be expected... but there's nothing to really "prove" it until you take it out and wring it out. Of course, then there's the all important excuses.

The 03/04 Cobra was the F-body killer supposedly... and yet I've seen it go the other way plenty of times. Hell I've beaten every LS1 I've come up against and I can't break into the 13's at a track yet. RWHP can vary so much it's OBVIOUS that someone is full of crap. And that's not just on the mustangs, it's on the f-body side as well. I know 12.4@108 sounds fairly off to me... an ET that low would PROBABLY have a higher MPH but certainly it COULD be done.

I'll refer you to another article by Hotrod... that came up with similar results with A LOT more modification than you are talking about here. Anyone find it interesting that the Ford/Mustang magazine came out with better numbers? Better drivers right? More HP from the 4.30's that MM&FF used right? Lower friction muffler bearings??? I'm all with the guy that says bring it to the track and we'll see. Bottom line is you can make anything fast. 3500 to get a blower makes almost any V8 pretty formidable.

Nuff said for now

Jonota

ps.... Who can do a complete gear swap for $190? I'm looking at 6-900....

I'm sure I'll be branded a mustang hater for this, but here goes:

I've heard all sorts of hype about this car. 12.4@XXX is GREAT. Getting there.... we'll just see about that. There are so many variables it's disgusting. And all these little wars that everyone has. The typical smack talking is to be expected... but there's nothing to really "prove" it until you take it out and wring it out. Of course, then there's the all important excuses.

The 03/04 Cobra was the F-body killer supposedly... and yet I've seen it go the other way plenty of times. Hell I've beaten every LS1 I've come up against and I can't break into the 13's at a track yet. RWHP can vary so much it's OBVIOUS that someone is full of crap. And that's not just on the mustangs, it's on the f-body side as well. I know 12.4@108 sounds fairly off to me... an ET that low would PROBABLY have a higher MPH but certainly it COULD be done.

I'll refer you to another article by Hotrod... that came up with similar results with A LOT more modification than you are talking about here. Anyone find it interesting that the Ford/Mustang magazine came out with better numbers? Better drivers right? More HP from the 4.30's that MM&FF used right? Lower friction muffler bearings??? I'm all with the guy that says bring it to the track and we'll see. Bottom line is you can make anything fast. 3500 to get a blower makes almost any V8 pretty formidable.

Nuff said for now

Jonota

ps.... Who can do a complete gear swap for $190? I'm looking at 6-900....

What you said goes for every single car ever tested by a mag. It ALWAYS comes down to the driver no matter what. Z06 included.
What magazines state is the info "they" get from "their" testing anyway.

I know a guy that bought a Z06 (03) and he went ot the track and ran a 16 second run. Yes 16 seconds. He cannot drive a stick good afterall. :D

I'm sure I'll be branded a mustang hater for this, but here goes:

I've heard all sorts of hype about this car. 12.4@XXX is GREAT. Getting there.... we'll just see about that. There are so many variables it's disgusting. And all these little wars that everyone has. The typical smack talking is to be expected... but there's nothing to really "prove" it until you take it out and wring it out. Of course, then there's the all important excuses.
I'm not sure I see any point in this paragraph. You don't like variables? You don't like the fact that there are a lot of variables? People make excuses?

The 03/04 Cobra was the F-body killer supposedly... and yet I've seen it go the other way plenty of times.
There is always someone faster. If you compare stock to stock, on average, then most sane people will come to the conclusion that the 03/04 is quicker than the LS1 F-body (by how much is open for debate). However, once either one starts the modding game, all bets are off. Same thing applies to any other car - including your LT1.

Hell I've beaten every LS1 I've come up against and I can't break into the 13's at a track yet.
I'll be nice and say that this simply means you haven't raced many yet. Even in Hawaii (and I've driven an LS1 F-body at Hawaii Raceway Park) LS1s are capable of 13s in stock trim.

RWHP can vary so much it's OBVIOUS that someone is full of crap. And that's not just on the mustangs, it's on the f-body side as well.
Actually, in stock trim, RWHP varies very little from car to car - a few percent at most. Dyno's vary - and when you multiply the two variences, sometimes it appears rather large.

I know 12.4@108 sounds fairly off to me... an ET that low would PROBABLY have a higher MPH but certainly it COULD be done.
It most certainly can be done. I have personally gone 12.01 @ 108 mph (not an 05 GT - just pointing out that the ET/MPH package is not unheard of).

I'll refer you to another article by Hotrod... that came up with similar results with A LOT more modification than you are talking about here. Anyone find it interesting that the Ford/Mustang magazine came out with better numbers? Better drivers right? More HP from the 4.30's that MM&FF used right? Lower friction muffler bearings???
If you magazine race, we can find virtually any reasonable ET for just about any car - LS1, Mustang, Neon, whatever.

BTW, there's another "bolt-on" 05 going 12.4s. Take a peek at www.jmschip.com/bullet.php. They are Mustang guys and biased to Mustangs (sort of like Hot Rod is biased to Chevies).

I'm all with the guy that says bring it to the track and we'll see. Bottom line is you can make anything fast.
Agreed.

3500 to get a blower makes almost any V8 pretty formidable.
Ummm....ya, ok.

I'm not sure I see any point in this paragraph. You don't like variables? You don't like the fact that there are a lot of variables? People make excuses?

No my point is that there's more bench racing going on here than at your typical ricer convention. This guy did this, this guy did that, he had such and such done as opposed to this guy with such and such. You seem to have it in your head firm that you're going to come here and DEMAND respect over a car that you don't even own, based on what guys that you don't know did somewhere you probably didn't even see. Sorry, just can't give it to you.


There is always someone faster. If you compare stock to stock, on average, then most sane people will come to the conclusion that the 03/04 is quicker than the LS1 F-body (by how much is open for debate). However, once either one starts the modding game, all bets are off. Same thing applies to any other car - including your LT1.

The average sane person also recognizes the Cobra as a.) more expensive and b.) a SUPERCHARGED car... slap a huffer on that LS1 see where you're precious 4.6 stands.....


I'll be nice and say that this simply means you haven't raced many yet. Even in Hawaii (and I've driven an LS1 F-body at Hawaii Raceway Park) LS1s are capable of 13s in stock trim.

I'm very glad for you. It must have been wonderful for you. Thank you SO much for "being nice". I appreciate it. That being said, the point was that throwing in the "driver" factor on every bad number you see is retarded... just like telling a story about beating a Lambo but leaving out the part where he missed his 1-2 shift.


Actually, in stock trim, RWHP varies very little from car to car - a few percent at most. Dyno's vary - and when you multiply the two variences, sometimes it appears rather large.

In that statement, I REALLY wasn't picking on your mustangs... try not to be overly defensive. In reality, I was talking more about the LS1 guys. I've seen claims of stock RWHP from 245-347. Quite a big spread not really covered by "error". There is a similar (yet not as drastic) spread in number coming from the 03/04 Cobra scene (heard 330-417).



It most certainly can be done. I have personally gone 12.01 @ 108 mph (not an 05 GT - just pointing out that the ET/MPH package is not unheard of).

Quit agreeing with me argumentatively please....

BTW, there's another "bolt-on" 05 going 12.4s. Take a peek at www.jmschip.com/bullet.php. They are Mustang guys and biased to Mustangs (sort of like Hot Rod is biased to Chevies).

Haven't ever heard of Hot Rod being GM biased... but sure it's possible. And YES magazine racing is, well, not so scientific. Most "community" mags are going to put their cars up... I'm not saying their outright lying, but everyone can fudge the numbers now and then. I'd put much more stock in a "mainstream" mag that doesn't cater to anyone in particular, Motor Trend, etc.

Ummm....ya, ok.

It's REALLY annoying when you make an attempt at splitting up what I've said to "focus" statements on specific portions of my post, but half of your comments are meaningless. Are you just trying to show your "mastery" of the quote??? Do you bring Power point shows to your monthly club meetings? Do you fine the guys that are late????

What I'm saying, and what I'm seeing here, is a bunch of Mustang enthusiasts (nothing wrong with that), coming onto an F-body site demanding respect for something that is a)not THAT impressive b) whining when they don't get the respect. Be the bigger man. If all your claims are true, go get yourself yon cheapy mustang, slap your <1K dollars in mods to it, and eat all the f-body guys like you seem to think you can. The gratification will make you feel so much better than having these guys bow down to the mighty 4.6L. And on the off chance that you get beat, and can't get those numbers out of your own... just realize that sometimes you don't get what you expect.

Jonota

Jonota-Jonota........ :tired:

Ah...some more fun. :)

No my point is that there's more bench racing going on here than at your typical ricer convention.
It's the internet - you should expect it. Besides, it was magazines that were being discussed.

This guy did this, this guy did that, he had such and such done as opposed to this guy with such and such.
Ok. Nobody had any real problem with this until you popped in.

You seem to have it in your head firm that you're going to come here and DEMAND respect over a car that you don't even own, based on what guys that you don't know did somewhere you probably didn't even see. Sorry, just can't give it to you.
Huh? I "demanded" nothing. in fact, in my reply to you, I didn't even offer an opinion on what I thought of the car in question. If I did, please quote me.

The average sane person also recognizes the Cobra as a.) more expensive and b.) a SUPERCHARGED car... slap a huffer on that LS1 see where you're precious 4.6 stands.....
ROFLOL. Remember your "ricer" comment above? My friend "slap a huffer on that LS1 see where your precious 4.6 stands" is a ricer arguement. It is little different than the Mustang guy that says "make the Mod Motor a 5.7 and see where your precious LS1 stands".

Give it a rest. That silly (ricer) arguement has been played. And played. And played.

I'm very glad for you. It must have been wonderful for you.
Actually it was a lot of fun. Track is slippery as hell though - or at least it was that night.

Thank you SO much for "being nice". I appreciate it.
No sweat.

That being said, the point was that throwing in the "driver" factor on every bad number you see is retarded...
Huh? Where did I do that?

just like telling a story about beating a Lambo but leaving out the part where he missed his 1-2 shift.
Uh, here's a straw. Try grasping at it.

In that statement, I REALLY wasn't picking on your mustangs... try not to be overly defensive.
Try not to assume I am being defensive. I have nothing to defend, my friend.

In reality, I was talking more about the LS1 guys. I've seen claims of stock RWHP from 245-347.
LOL. So, let me get this straight. Stock LS1s have a factory varience of ~34%? Interesting concept. I kind of thought GM's quality control was a bit better than that.

Perhaps you're mixing up LT1s, LS1s, and LS6s?

Quite a big spread not really covered by "error".
See above.

There is a similar (yet not as drastic) spread in number coming from the 03/04 Cobra scene (heard 330-417).
I think your hearing is a bit off. 360-380 is a much more common "spread". Of course, if you count in Mustang dynos, SAE corrections, STD corrections, actual HP, etc, then I suppose you could get close to your range.

Quit agreeing with me argumentatively please....
I'll take that under advisement.

Haven't ever heard of Hot Rod being GM biased... but sure it's possible.
Yup. Quite possible.

And YES magazine racing is, well, not so scientific. Most "community" mags are going to put their cars up... I'm not saying their outright lying, but everyone can fudge the numbers now and then.
Nah, you're saying they're lying - go ahead and admit it. But you know what? MM&FF must of have lied when they went 12.89 in a stock 98 Z and 12.9 in a stock 01 SS. Or is that their "Mustang bias" showing?

I'd put much more stock in a "mainstream" mag that doesn't cater to anyone in particular, Motor Trend, etc.
Especially when it benefits you, I'm sure.

It's REALLY annoying when you make an attempt at splitting up what I've said to "focus" statements on specific portions of my post, but half of your comments are meaningless.
I'd like to say that I'm sorry for annoying you, but I'd be lying, so I won't say it. As for "meaningless comments", we all have our opinions.

Are you just trying to show your "mastery" of the quote???
Nope. No need to.

Do you bring Power point shows to your monthly club meetings? Do you fine the guys that are late????
Nah, I get enough of Powerpoint at work.

What I'm saying, and what I'm seeing here, is a bunch of Mustang enthusiasts (nothing wrong with that), coming onto an F-body site demanding respect for something
Stereotyping is your friend. And I ask again - who is demanding respect for anything?

For that matter, compare my join date with yours.

Anyways....

that is a)not THAT impressive
Ok. We all have our opinions. Personally, I doubt anybody here is impressed (or not) with your inability to run 13s, but I digress.

b) whining when they don't get the respect.
Who isn't getting respect? And who cares?

Be the bigger man.
Like you? No thanks.

If all your claims are true
My claims? Come again?

go get yourself yon cheapy mustang, slap your <1K dollars in mods to it, and eat all the f-body guys like you seem to think you can.
I'm having real hard time finding something that relates to buying a 'cheapy' Mustang, 'slapping' $1k in mods on it, and then 'eating' F-bodies. Sounds like something you made up.

What was that about being defensive?

The gratification will make you feel so much better than having these guys bow down to the mighty 4.6L.
LOL. Once again, where is it that anybody is wanting anybody else to bow down to anything? Please quote whomever it is that said (or implied) this. Please.

And on the off chance that you get beat, and can't get those numbers out of your own... just realize that sometimes you don't get what you expect.
Ya. Like 14 second modded LT1s. Right?

Jonota
Bob

And you have a wonderful day - I appreciate you taking the time to post this.

:cz28:

I've heard all sorts of hype about this car. 12.4@XXX is GREAT. Getting there.... we'll just see about that. There are so many variables it's disgusting. And all these little wars that everyone has. The typical smack talking is to be expected... but there's nothing to really "prove" it until you take it out and wring it out. Of course, then there's the all important excuses.Well, well...how about this? (http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=16534)
UD pulleys, tune, removed emissions filter and a set of LCA's...13.1@105mph at Moroso, no less. No gears, no tires, no intake, no exhaust, no excuses.
The 03/04 Cobra was the F-body killer supposedly... and yet I've seen it go the other way plenty of times. Hell I've beaten every LS1 I've come up against and I can't break into the 13's at a track yet. RWHP can vary so much it's OBVIOUS that someone is full of crap. And that's not just on the mustangs, it's on the f-body side as well. I know 12.4@108 sounds fairly off to me... an ET that low would PROBABLY have a higher MPH but certainly it COULD be done.Then I would submit you spend very little, if any, time at the track. Mid-12's with less than 110mph is pretty damn common.
ps.... Who can do a complete gear swap for $190? I'm looking at 6-900....Maybe it's more expensive in Hawaii. The FRPP gearset is $190, plus friction modifier and gear oil (~$25), not sure if these cars use a different speedo gear...labor is around $150, $200 at the more expensive shops. On the low side, it's a bit more than $350, on the high side a bit over $400.

What are the excuses now? The car went 13.1 at over 105 with a $325 SCT Xcalibrator flash tune and a set of UD pullies.
BTW...there are pics of his timeslips in the thread.
S.

Guys, don't let the stupidity and hard headedness of some F-body people make you believe we are all that way. It's amazing to me that some of these guys don't get the concept. Maybe we should recap all their arguments.

LS1 = the #3 engine ever produced (LS6 = #2, LS2 is now #1, but all soon to be knocked down one notch by LS7). Nothing compares. You can pick up and extra 1000 hp with simple bolt ons and a few stickers!!!
4.6L = teh suck!11! Best boat anchor ever produced.
SC 4.6L = Well, it took a supercharger to get any horsepower out of the 4.6L so you can't compare it to an LS1. My LS1 would have 700 hp with an SC.
LS1 F-body = Fastest thing ever produced, next to the Corvette or cars costing 1,000,000 times more.
'03-04 Cobra = Only has a shot against an LS1 because it's supercharged and that's cheating plus it costs like $30k more and weighs 1000 lbs more. Besides, they break half shafts like crazy (not like an F-body has ever broken a rear).
'05 Mustang = Sure it runs the same number as a similarly modded 6 speed equipped LS1, but it only traps 107 mph. I can trap as high as 113 running that exact same 1/4 and would 1/4 even better if I didn't have a glass 10 bolt rear! :p Besides, I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes at the track (sounds like the argument used with '03-04 Cobras and yet they seemed to run the numbers with few mods) and even then I won't believe it plus I'll laugh because a stock LS1 F-body traps just as high as a modded Mustang even though it runs the quarter 1 second slower unless it has a 12 bolt or 9 inch. Besides, I only race from a roll on the street (like a ricer!).
'04 GTO - 98% of them sold for only $24k. Didn't you know that, retard! Quit saying they are more expensive than a Mustang!
'05 GTO - Pfftt. 4.6L what? LS2 baby. After I get my GM discount and $5000 rebate it's just as cheap as a new Mustang. Of course the IRS means it won't run the 1/4 worth a sh!t but it will trap like a mofo!

I hope somebody realizes how absolutely retarded all that sounds but evidently not since we keep hearing the same arguments. If you don't like Mustangs, fine, don't buy one. I personally don't have one and don't intend to. But that doesn't mean they can't run a 12.4 @ 107 like was stated. [Napoleon Dynamite] IDIOTS!!!! [/Napoleon Dynamite]

What are the excuses now? The car went 13.1 at over 105 with a $325 SCT Xcalibrator flash tune and a set of UD pullies.
BTW...there are pics of his timeslips in the thread.
S.


Damnit man! Now there's pullies, too?

You're making my definitive absolutist statements look bad.

Well...the JDM car did it with just a flash tune. But, it was also at E-town and this car was at Moroso. I'm sure there was a difference in weather/track conditions.
Still, it should be very apparent that with nothing more than a flash tune for 91+ octane that removes the "electronic nanny" on gear changes...the '05 GT will pretty much run right next to an LS1 F-body.
S.

Some of you guys just need to quit hating.

Your compare a car that is no longer made to it...LS1. Well, I remember a certain GNX that ran low 13's @ 107+ back in the 80's...what took GM so long. Wait, what about those cars that rumbled back in the late 60's...some of them ran low 12's@115+ and quicker(with low technology compared to now)...what took GM so long.

Some of you sound bitter...like an old man that cannot get it up and you snap at a young kid that can.

Like someone else said...it would not matter if Ford had the GT running bone stock 12.0's@120 mph....it still would be Ford.

AND let me enlighten some of you that think 108 mph is a slow mph because your car runs similar mph, yet slower ET.

How fast is your MPH @ 12.4 seconds? Now who is slow?

Wait, what about those cars that rumbled back in the late 60's...some of them ran low 12's@115+ and quicker(with low technology compared to now)...what took GM so long.


While I can agree where you're coming from, the myth that 60's muscle cars ran 11's right out of the showrooms was debunked here a long time ago.

If the '05 Mustang GT is running mid 12's with just a tune and gears, that's pretty outstanding. HOWEVER as fastdog pointed out, I'd like to hear the reasons why Ford hamstrung the car with a lukewarm tune in the first place. It's too early to tell what (if anything) will break or wear prematurely after a re-flash.

Both the tranny and the rear are beefier than the units they replaced. I wouldn't expect them to fail.
Think of it this way...the vast majority of them won't be modded/flashed. If Ford took a preventive measure by "hamstringing" all cars, they'll probably realize the benefits in reduced warranty claims over the entire production run of Mustang GT's.
S.

Of course, one reason that Mustangs are "corked up" is to preserve driveline integrity.

However, a couple of years ago, I had an interesting conversation with a Mustang engineer. He said, that Ford was planning on artificially restricting Mustang's output, in order to make them more easily responsive to aftermarket parts.

I think we already see this with the GT, and we will REALLY see this with the Cobra.

LS1 guys have found easy horsepower out of their cars with a more aggressive tune as well....everyone does it to some extent to better hold a car together and reduce warranty claims. Just depends on how "tied down" you want the motor to be.

While not all or even close to all of the old rumbling Muscle cars of yesteryear ran stellar times, some did.

I have numerous publications and articles of cars running back in the day pretty good times. Now they had leaded gas, no emissions and such, but some cars back then were pretty stout.

Perfect example though not a car you would see on the street...none the less, I can see a de-tuned and heavier car still running pretty strong.

My father owned this car...from the factory...40 years ago.

10.0's@140 almost.... (http://www.geocities.com/jmaxnakron/Orange_Blossom_II.html)

People came from all over to see that car run...those times are nothing now..but back then...that was pretty stout.

It's also the first year for this car.

My father owned this car...from the factory...40 years ago.

10.0's@140 almost.... (http://www.geocities.com/jmaxnakron/Orange_Blossom_II.html)

Can you give me some more background on this car? From the small picture it's hard to tell, but I've never seen a car quite like that come "straight" from a Big 3 factory and onto a dealer's floor.

While not all or even close to all of the old rumbling Muscle cars of yesteryear ran stellar times, some did.

I have numerous publications and articles of cars running back in the day pretty good times. Now they had leaded gas, no emissions and such, but some cars back then were pretty stout.

Perfect example though not a car you would see on the street...none the less, I can see a de-tuned and heavier car still running pretty strong.

My father owned this car...from the factory...40 years ago.

10.0's@140 almost.... (http://www.geocities.com/jmaxnakron/Orange_Blossom_II.html)

People came from all over to see that car run...those times are nothing now..but back then...that was pretty stout.

There's a good deal of Ramchargers ideas going on with your Dad's car my friend.

Nice piece! :cool:

While not all or even close to all of the old rumbling Muscle cars of yesteryear ran stellar times, some did.

I have numerous publications and articles of cars running back in the day pretty good times. Now they had leaded gas, no emissions and such, but some cars back then were pretty stout.

Perfect example though not a car you would see on the street...none the less, I can see a de-tuned and heavier car still running pretty strong.

My father owned this car...from the factory...40 years ago.

10.0's@140 almost.... (http://www.geocities.com/jmaxnakron/Orange_Blossom_II.html)

People came from all over to see that car run...those times are nothing now..but back then...that was pretty stout.


Thats is far from how it came from the factory my friend.

1968 - 1969 Hemi "A" cars Barracuda and Dart - Factory race cars, bought without paint and other amenities. 10's off the floor - 70? made?

Several other old Mopars were serious runners - labeled as factory race cars.

1968 - 1969 Hemi "A" cars Barracuda and Dart - Factory race cars, bought without paint and other amenities. 10's off the floor - 70? made?

Several other old Mopars were serious runners - labeled as factory race cars.


Those are the ones built by Hurst (I know someone other then the factory built them) were'nt they? Factory offerings? nah. :bow:

Other than the paint job and the intake setup was in the trunk...yes, that is how it showed up.

Back then they actually were in a factory power war.

Other than the paint job and the intake setup was in the trunk...yes, that is how it showed up.

Back then they actually were in a factory power war.

Sure they came to the dealer already prep'ed. But they were not done that way from the factory. Thats all Im tring to say.

Eh. . . who cares. As previously mentioned, that's stock 1998 LS1 6spd Fbody trapspeed.

Real benefit I see is that you CAN indeed install those gears & a tire, and launch THAT hard. Obviously the 10 bolt in an Fbody will never take that beating, at least in an M6, continuously.

Otherwise, it's really not that impressive.

Mike
Owning several camaros, I can say I am hoping the mustang is better build quality. My 00 ss with 46K miles was a POS

Owning several camaros, I can say I am hoping the mustang is better build quality. My 00 ss with 46K miles was a POS :lol: why was that?

Gee I dont know, ask Chevy. Hopefully when they bring it back they will upgrage the quality. I have had 13 camaros and firebirds. 4 4th gens, and they all are the same, with one thing the dang sunvisors fall off, all had power windows that went out ect.