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.

 

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.

 

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 ******* 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.

 

I'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.

 

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'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 .