Mustang SVT GT350?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
The Mustang GT will be at least as fast as the current Mach1.
About the same weight, about the same horsepower, LOTS more low end torque......it's not rocket science.
And it's looking more likely that the GT350 will replace the Cobra. Scratch any thought of a 350hp motor for it.
About the same weight, about the same horsepower, LOTS more low end torque......it's not rocket science.
And it's looking more likely that the GT350 will replace the Cobra. Scratch any thought of a 350hp motor for it.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
The performance of the GT sounds about what I expected.
So this means that there will be no more Mustang Cobra?
The performance of the GT sounds about what I expected.
So this means that there will be no more Mustang Cobra?
Last edited by scott9050; Feb 18, 2004 at 08:02 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Re: Re: Mustang SVT GT350?
Originally posted by PacerX
Hehehehhe...
And yet another generation of Mustang GT's is cannon fodder for the Z28...
... the last generation Z28, that is.
Hehehehhe...
And yet another generation of Mustang GT's is cannon fodder for the Z28...
... the last generation Z28, that is.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by morb|d
never say never. if the rumors are correct that there are two versions, GT350 and GT500, then its not all that unlikely.
then again, the 350 could mean a bump in displacement. there was that rumor of the 5.7L V10...
never say never. if the rumors are correct that there are two versions, GT350 and GT500, then its not all that unlikely.
then again, the 350 could mean a bump in displacement. there was that rumor of the 5.7L V10...
Last edited by scott9050; Feb 18, 2004 at 08:07 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by ProudPony
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by scott9050
I could see the 350 hp version becoming the next Mach I (which would be a logical progression) if they keep the Mach name (which they might not....). It looks to be interesting whatever they decide to do.
I could see the 350 hp version becoming the next Mach I (which would be a logical progression) if they keep the Mach name (which they might not....). It looks to be interesting whatever they decide to do.
Any guesses on what might generate 350 horses now?
3v 5.4?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 293
From: Hou,TX
Originally posted by PaperTarget
The 4.6L 3V with VCT has the same air flow as the 4V does. Add on top of that the 3V with VCT give more low end torque. I've been saying the 4V was going away for a while now...
The 4.6L 3V with VCT has the same air flow as the 4V does. Add on top of that the 3V with VCT give more low end torque. I've been saying the 4V was going away for a while now...
Yup. And word on the Ford sites is the next Mach1 is a 3V VCT 5.4, 5spd, solid axle.
Holy SH*T!
So the lineup is looking to round out like.
GT - 3V VCT 4.6 325hp low 13s@~106-107
Mach1 - 3V VCT 5.4 380hp mid-high 12s@~112
Cobra - 3V VCT/4V SC 5.4 500hp high 11s@~120
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
It never made sense to me to continue the 4V N/A motor in the Mustang line since the 3V was so much better. A 4V with VCT might be an improvement, but how much? What kind of tune/gas would a 4V with VCT require to get 50 HP more than the 3V? I'm sure Ford has answered those questions and found the 4V not that much better (in 4.6L terms). Now a 5.4L would be a different ball game.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Yeah, I think the Mach1 (or the Mustang model that takes that slot), will have a 3v 5.4, tuned for lots of low-end torque.
I can't wait to see the final state of tune for the SVT Mustang's motor. Compared to the Ford GT....will it have 3v or 4v? Dry sump or no dry sump? 500 hp or no 500hp?...or more than 500hp.
I can't wait to see the final state of tune for the SVT Mustang's motor. Compared to the Ford GT....will it have 3v or 4v? Dry sump or no dry sump? 500 hp or no 500hp?...or more than 500hp.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
brothaslide
2016+ Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and General Discussion
6
Jan 9, 2016 12:11 PM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
1
Jul 8, 2015 06:47 PM
