Those F1's are complete garbage. I have never met someone that has anything nice to say about them. My Cheap-*** Sumitomo HTZ II ($121) 275 40 ZR 17's handle and hook up much better than the F1's at half the cost.

I am also surprised that the Mustang was tested at the track because aren't most of thier times tested on the street in "everyday" conditions? That may account for a good hook-up but the low mph.

 

Since this thread has turned into a magazine times comparisions, lets compare the '05 GT with some LT1 times.

1996 Camaro Z28SS 13.55 @ 104.86 Feb. 1996 HotRod
1996 Camaro Z28SS 13.7 @ 102 mph Oct. 1995 Car & Driver
1996 Camaro SS 13.3 @ 106 mph Feb. 1996 Sports Car Intl.


Of course those were top of the line LT1s back then, but rated at a 305-310hp range, close to what the '05 GT is rated.
Your average stock 275-285hp LT1 is going to run about 1/2 sec. slower than these times, but there are some fast stock LT1s out there.

 

So now add:

2005 Mustang GT Auto 13.6s @99mph Motortrend
2005 Mustang GT Manual 13.2-13.4@104mph??

Which would mean the 05 is right in LS1 territory.

 

Fine....lets wait till we get some manual tranny times to continue this discussion.

So far all we know is that the 05 GT Auto runs at least a 13.6sec 1/4 mile which is faster than the auto GTO and any Auto F-body. Heck, it will probably beat some LT1's with manual trannies as well.

The big question is what will the 5-speed Mustang run. Only 0.1sec quicker or 0.3 seconds quicker. I'm interested to find out.

 

I like how you make these sweeping statements like it is faster than any auto F-body or GTO. Your looking at this the wrong way. The et just says that it hooked up well on that run which could be a whole host of things, the part I would be worried about is the fact that it only ran 99 mph which is not good. I will bet you large sums of money that if you take an 05' GT auto and an 02' Z28 (not SS mind you) auto, the Z will win, et and mph. Track-track or street-street. You should just listen to your own advice in your first statement and just wait until more info comes out.

 

more like "..which is faster than any Auto F-body except 98-02.."

LS1 auto..and to be honest, shouldn't the 2005 Mustang GT be faster? It is 2005 MY afterall...

 

Can someone please show me a timeslip with a stock Auto F-body running under 13.6sec in the 1/4 mile? I've never heard of it.

NEIL, could it be that the 05 GT hooked up because its modern suspension setup was designed to do so better than any SN-95 or F-body? I don't understand why you treat this as a once-in-a-blue-moon run?

This may be crazy but could it be that even with less peak power the 05 GT can keep up with many F-bodies due to a well engineered live-axle setup (no IRS vs. live debate please). This may well be the case.

The thing is, with 1/4 mile runs varying with location, temperature, car, driver etc. etc. someone can always take select "amazing runs" and say their car is faster.

I think debating over 0.2sec in the quarter is getting to be a bit of a stalemate. Its a driver's race. The point is, the 05 GT isn't a high 13 second car like many have said it would be. The manual will run somewhere <13.5sec. This is great news for Mustang fans who've had to drive 14+ second cars for the last 10 years.

 

You will own yourself BADLY if you keep up this "no LS1 auto can get a sub 13.6 stock" argument.

Take a look at this, all runs on a STOCK LS1 A4.

Courtesy of a member on ls2.com

the 100 mph trap on the one slip, he hits the brakes a bit early before the end.

You'll notice that on one of the slips.



Just give it up dan, the 05' GT isn't going to beat any properly driven LS1s.

Just appreciate the vast improvements made over the 04' model GTs and enjoy it.

 

Maybe the great start has to do with the fact that it was tested at an actual dragstrip that has a better surface than the street. I will not say that it was a freak run until I see more runs or tests but I find it odd that MT would test the car on a dragstip while other cars they test are not.

 

Uhhh... a 13.6@99mph IS NOT faster than the auto LS1's.

Driver's race with the advantage to the F-car.

 

Man, you are a bunch of 1/4 mile queens. What I got out of this article was that while the mustang has a lot of engine, it's lacking in braking and chassis. Woopy doo that it runs a 13.6. My 2.0L runs high 12's. Strait away speed is easy to fix. Driving dynamics are where it's at for me, and their comparison of the mustang and its rear axle to the rx-8 and 350z tells me that it will be a lot like its predecessor, fast, but a bit clumsy. Great, it looks like a 60's car and is still designed with a 60's mindset of 1/4 mile tunnel vision.

 

Not trying to flame but to say straight away speed can be improved in the aftermarket kind of defeats your trashing of it handling wise. Because handling can be improved upon via the aftermarket as well.
I'll wager it will handle and excelerate adequately and that's ok by me for 25k.

 

Actually, I prefer handling to 1/4 mile racing, mainly because I'm a better driver than dragger. But regardless, your 2.0L is turbo charged and that does make a difference when saying that's it's just a 2.0L. It's also AWD which is also an advantage when launched properly (I should know, I have a WRX). Regardless, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Nor do I know how modified your car is because I know they don't run 12's in stock trim unless it's a factory freak.

However, the driving dynamics of the '05 Mustang GT are very good. The chassis is first class. Yes it has a solid rear axle, but it still handles very well as many a reviewer has noted. There's little doubt in my mind that a few aftermarket parts could make this car whoop, yes I said whoop, a 350Z Track model on the track. And while it shares some similarities in looks with the older cars (and newer) I don't think the entire focus was on 1/4 mile racing. There's a lot of reviews coming out, of the few I've read, most all have high marks for the handling.

 

Good point. IRS only really has a handling advantage if the suspension is getting upset because of a rough track.

If the track is glassy smooth, the live axle (if that's the only difference) should come out on top.

The F-cars were really good handling cars on a road course, and remain so. Everyone I've talked to found the LS1 F-cars to be better handlers than the equivalent year IRS Mustangs through 2002.

Now that the new Mustang is out and using a live axle, I'd like to see a comparo there. Methinks the IRS folks will be surprised...




Putting the words "high 12 second quarter mile" in a post like it's a badge of honor is just silly, no matter what the displacement is.

Straight away speed is easy to fix if your goal is something as mundane as a high 12. If you goal is a 9, it is FAR from mundane and I hope you have a BIG budget for exploding drivetrain components and a trailer to get the car home with because I'm going to guarantee you start grendaing stuff in short order.

Pick a quarter mile time, any time at all, and the F-car or Mustang is going to be FAR more cost efficient getting there than an over-hyped turbocharged I4, regardless of manufacturer.

Finally, on a road course, neither pony car is a slouch and if the mod wars begin, your little Mitsu is gonna get spanked hard.

 

We actually agree on two things. The universe is going to explode!