If they really are dynoing 270-280 at the wheels like ProudPony posted a while back, with the added weight of the LS chassis, low 13's are going to be pretty hard to obtain. We shall see.

 

Mostly true. but the Mach weighs about the same (4,450lbs vs the GT's 4,425). Don't remember the Mach's dyno's but it was somewhere in that vacinity (270-280rwhp). And the mach's 4 valve is said to be peakier, an issue that the 3v Sohc should somewhat address. And the 5spd Mach's really haven't had much trouble knocking down low 13's. Now the auto, that's a different story and a high 13 sec car.

I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

As for the Cobra or Cobra replacement, Ford has already said that it will have "substantially more than the current 390". So i'd say a minimum of 450 horses.

 

Yeah, Welcome to 12 years ago..........I had to say it. Those are just a tick quicker than a 93' F-body except for the top speed. I am still wondering what the drag coefficient is for the new car.

If the GT350 is the Cobra replacement, then what is the significance of the "350"? Is the only reason because it is an old name and Ford didn't want to mess with history? Maybe there won't be a Mach1 car and instead it will be called GT350 and the Cobra will be called GT500 and those numbers will relate to the HP numbers.

 

Yes - they are. These are common numbers for "production cars" that were delivered to Roush, Saleen, and the like for development of aftemarket have been clocking 275 hp on average... remember, they are BRAND NEW - as in not broken in or settled either.
BUT, I have yet to see/hear anything on the torque figures.
It could be that the VVT and 3V heads are capable of getting more low-end torque, which when combined with better gears in the T5 or T56 and a 3.55 rear axle will give very respectable times.

I think low 13's for a Mustang GT is gonna be the exception, not the rule. But mid 13's shouldn't be that difficult for a car that's broken in and driven properly.

Also remember, we have a new rear-end set-up in the '05 that is likely to handle the launch a little better than the quadra-link setup too.

I'd guess that the mildest mods (like exhaust, gears, or even a chip tune) could yield a solid 13-second car with impecable street manners. Not a rocket, but not bad at all either. Time will tell.


on another note...



I hope this was intended as "light-hearted humor"...


Whether intended as such or not, it still bothers me that some people just don't get it.
So the base V8's of 2005 are not the fastest cars on the streets... big deal.

Wanna run a stock "last generation Z28" against a stock '71 Boss 351 or a stock '69 Z28 or '70 SS or a stock '71 Road Runner or a stock 440 'cuda or a stock GTX or a stock '69 GTO? All good 13-14 second-capable cars AND 30 years older than a coveted "last generation Z28, that is." Big deal?

I guess what bothers me the most about comments like that about the GT is that folks in this forum are the "crem de la crem" of car guys - knowing more "car stuff" than most by far, yet so many still cannot grasp the fact that the fastest car does not always win the race.

Ford risked a lot by holding back on the performance levels of the GT and LX in the late 1980's, but it worked. Ford had the parts - on the shelf - to make the 5.0 faster than any F-bod from GM direct... the FRPP catalog for years has had GT40 upper and lower intakes, aluminum ported heads, X303 and B303 cams, long-tube headers, stroker cranks, and PILES of other parts that all have FORD part numbers on them and are made in Ford plants. All they had to do was pass the testing and put them on the cars themselves - BUT THAT WAS NOT THE PLAN.

The plan is to offer a good base platform at a cheap price, and allow the DIY'er to build their car to the level and type of performance they wanted to - with factory supported technology. It has been a WHOPPING success for 15 years now, to the tune of +150k cars/year in sales, despite a sluggish - no make that a recessed - economy burdened with high fuel prices, inflation, and seemingly endless job-losses. Why change that formula? The cars are selling like bubble gum.

To me, THAT is winning the race. The Mustang is not just "still hanging around", but it is hugely succesful, on many platforms from a basic economy grocery-getter car to screaming SVT Cobras (that WILL outperform the last generation f-car effortlessly - in stock trim).

So go ahead - pick on the new GT. It's not a rocket. It's not meant to be one. But I'd be very careful about picking fights with them when they get here - you just might be surprised by one sometime soon.
And for good advise, I'd stay FAR away from the rest of the pony crowd... when only the base V8 Mustang is below 400hp - it's the ONLY one I'd jump on in a stock F-car. JMO.

As for me, I'm still sitting here with my fingers crossed that the F5 OFFERS A BASE V8 UNIT.
And if they do offer it, I hope to <insert deity name here>'s name that it is not FASTER than the top-dog Mustang of 2005.

 

RiceEating...

Check your PM's.

 

Thanks A LOT!! . I'll email you later on in the day.

I think so. Ford had said that production of Mach's will be limited to two years despite them being a nice addition to the current lineup. It plays a nice middle man for the low end GT and top end Cobra. Assuming the Mach name gets axed (and it probably will) a GT350 (with 350 horses) could be the potential replacement for the Mach.

My question is.....will it be called "Ford Mustang GT350" and "SVT GT500" respectively.....or will the Shelby name be thrown into the mix??

Any chance we'll see the rumored 350hp version by 2005 model year. Too early??

 

The original GT350 had 306 horsepower. The longstanding rumor is that when Shelby was originally working on the car and needed a name he asked one of his other engineers how far he though it was to the building across the street - it was "about 350 feet" so they named the car "GT350" it was just an arbitrary name which didn't have anything to do with the power of the car.

 

GT350 is an arbitrary name that (according to folklore), denotes the number of feet between Shelby's race shop and production facility.

Ford contracted with Shelby to essentially turn the Mustang into a race car....a car that could compete with Corvette in SCCA road racing. The GT350 had extensive lightening, suspension and powertrain revisions....and even an optional Paxton supercharger. The GT350R ("R" for Race)....took this even further.

The Mustang GT350 name, really has quite a racing pedigree. If the Cobra name will move on to the two seater.....then, I think that this is a worthy Cobra model replacement for the Mustang.

The GT500 is also an arbitrary number that was chosen because it was "more" than 350.

Although the GT500's were fancier and had bigger engines that the GT350.....in my book.....it's hard to compete with the GT350 and GT350R when it comes to "cool".

 

i would never buy a gt....when the gt500 comes out i will be all over it if there isnt a fith gen camaro around. I doubt that the camaro will be ne faster then the stang by that time. The new camaro if & when it comes out, will prob look like an impala, and have a 4 dr variant, prob have a fwd option. The SS will prob not have ne where near the power of the stang due to the corvette. So my money is on the stang for power and performance. Corvette just slows us camaro guys down while it makes the stang guys strive to beat it.

 

Every Mustang I tore a new a$$hole in my SS in the summer of 2001 (back when I was stock) didn't seem to care much about how much Corvette was slowing me down.

They were worried about how much Ford was slowing them down.

The onus is on Ford, GM has the initiative. If I were a Ford GT engineer, I would be very concerned about what GM can do with a $60,000 Corvette.

Or an $80,000 Corvette.

Or a $100,000 Corvette.

 

Well said.
You just can not over emphasize Ford's aftermarket commitment & the fact that a few small tweeks could completely change the nature of the Mustang (Ford even had engine codes freely available, something that was darn near top secret on 3rd gens).

The point is that simply being the quickest & fastest isn't going to cut it, and never did. It's the ability to personalize you car with with performance parts that get's the commitment.

Just like in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the Tuner scene from the 90s to date.

Mustang has a greater aftermarket and a company that encourages this, and it's still here.

Best of all, you don't have to pay (or is it, overpay?) SLP to do it for you.

 

~270 RWHP not broken in = Mach1
~3300lbs = Mach1

Mach1 13.2 @ 106 STOCK

The '05 Mustang GT will be just as quick and fast as the last LS1 Z28. Ford has achieved performance parity with the Camaro (dead Camaro). It took a lot longer considering the Ford engineers were working with a compromised motor intended for FWD apps. But they have arrived.

Denial ain't just a river in Africa.

 

What denial are you talking about? Sounds like your exaggerated predictions of the new GT might not pan out and you are getting a little worried you might have to eat your words.

Also I can say LS1 12.8 @ 109 STOCK

 

We shall see....

 

I can say that too.

http://www.mach1registry.org/forums/...?threadid=9507

But I chose to post the average times instead of the best.

Sorry, but the LS1 Fbod is not a high 12 car either.

It is generally accepted the 3V head flows as well as the 4V and the VVT is going to give a better torque curve than the current 4V, which again is already putting out LS1 performance in the Mach1.

Simply put the 3V and 4V 4.6 mod motor has finally achieved parity with the LS1.

The GT will be at least as fast as the Mach1 and Z28.