Originally Posted by stone4779

You missed the point he was making...

03/'04 Cobras put down more HP to run the same ET vs LS1 FBodies.....
no offense, just stating fact...

Originally Posted by Antz97ZNJ

What cobra would you be talkin about....MM&FF & JDM have ran bone stock 03 Cobras to 12.4's...and average decent driver usually runs 12.6's @ or around 113...some even higher....better check your source of "facts" cause its anything but that.

Originally Posted by Antz97ZNJ

What cobra would you be talkin about....MM&FF & JDM have ran bone stock 03 Cobras to 12.4's...and average decent driver usually runs 12.6's @ or around 113...some even higher....better check your source of "facts" cause its anything but that.

Originally Posted by scott9050

Evan Smith ran a 12.89 at 109+ and it was with temps hovering around freezing. Evan also got a 13.3 out of a Mach I and a 14 flat out of an AODE GT convertible.

Originally Posted by jthomas

actually, they also tested one in the heat of the summer and got pretty much the same times. bob cosby posted a link to the scanned article on this forum some time ago.

fwiw, i like the new mustangs. besides, the better ford makes them, the better gm will have to do if they ever release the f-body again.

Originally Posted by stone4779

Should have said better efficiency.

The '05 gets the same mileage as the '04(both autos) while having 3.31 gears vs the old 3.27. And both the A5 & M5 are geared more aggressively than the old A4 & M5.

05 GT...................04 GT

M5 3.55 axle........M5 3.55 axle
3.38.........................3.35
2.00.........................1.99
1.32.........................1.33
1.00.........................1.00
0.675........................0.68

A5 3.31 axle..........A4 3.27 axle
3.22..........................2.84
2.29..........................1.55
1.54..........................1.00
1.00..........................0.70
0.71

So the 05 gets the same mileage while not only having more agressive rear axle ratio(on the auto...the manuals are the same) but the trannys are also geared more aggressively, AND having more power (260 hp vs 300 hp) AND having a higher curb weight ('05 - 3425 vs '04 - 3347)

Even if the 05 got a little less mileage, it would still be more efficient since it is has more gear. In this case the 04 has a combined city/hwy mpg of 21 vs the 05s 21 for the M5 and 20.5 for the A5.

So, draw your own conclusion. Its amazing, really.

EDIT: I cant believe Im defending a rustang!

Originally Posted by FastZinTennessee

I like the new mustangs as well. More power is always good and I think the bodystyle is really well done. I would like to go see one up close and maybe even drive one. Can't wait for that bodystyle Cobra to come out

Originally Posted by Steve Y

'04 GT 5-speed:
3.37
1.99
1.33
1.00
.67
3.27 axle ratio
25.7" diameter calculated tire height

'05 GT 5-speed:
3.37
1.99
1.33
1.00
.67
3.55 axle ratio
27.2" diameter calculated tire height, so that cuts down the effective gearing to a 3.35 rear axle ratio. The only way to really tell mileage is to test both cars on the same loop, same speed, same day, etc. The EPA stuff is usually off. I bet the '05 gets a little worse mileage. The '04 has less cruise rpm in any gear, less weight and is smaller than the '05. Anybody know the coefficients of drag for both cars?

Originally Posted by Steve Y

I drove an '05 V6 automatic hardtop the other day. That thing is a very solid car! Way more so than any older Stang. That thing pulled hard for a V6. The car is so different than my '00 it seems like it is not a Mustang anymore, rather a different make and model altogether. The interior is way different, too.

Originally Posted by stone4779

DOH! [smacks head]

lol I forgot about tire diameter...but its still more gear, heavier, etc and rated the same. The test couldnt be that far off. So far every car I've had the EPA estimates were spot on, with the exception of the Altima which does actually better.

I too wonder what the C.D. is?

We will probably never know what the real mpg is as the owners will undoubtably proclaim 50 mpg city lol.

It still stands that they are rated the same mpg but have more hp & are heavier....of course they could have fudged the estimated somehow like GM did with CAGS on the FBody M6s...

Drink anyone?

Originally Posted by stone4779

I know Im trying to talk my mom into getting one so when I come to visit I can take it for a spin. The new V6 is a 4.0! lol thats awesome.

I wouldnt buy one for myself becase its just not what I picture myself in, but I think it would be PERFECT for my mom...she has owned both the 1st gen Mustangs and Camaros(among others..'92 Z28, '89? Vert IROC, '73? RS..she likes GMs ) and likes the '05. She said its almost exactly the same as the original save for better quality and updated just enough to be "just right". Even the interior.

She asked if they were going to do the Camaro retro like that, and if they did, she would get a loaded 'Vert V6. (Would be cool for my mom to have a V6 Vert and me a loaded V8...makes for nice family pictures)

I told my sister I would co-sign for her an '05 V6 but she doesnt like them(She says they are cool but she prefers to have a truck). Go figure.

I would have thought she would have been jumping all over the place...guess not.

Overall its nice, and can serve a lot of different people. I would love to drive a V6 Vert every now and then...

Although, theres something not right about it, I just cant put my finger on it...

Originally Posted by Steve Y

My Stang with the current mods got about 20 mpg last time on 91 octane with half city driving and half highway. I hammer it about 5-10% of the time. Anybody have any mpg tests of '05 GT 5-speeds?

Originally Posted by stone4779

Sweet. I think the 93 actually helps me get better mileage(I gained about 3 mpg while driving it even harder) plus it is waaay better on the engine...(wear & tear-wise)

I would recommend everyone use premium fuel...its worth it in the long run plus your only talking like $3-$5 extra per tank depending on the tank size...Its eventually going to hit $2.00/gal anyways(well Im a pessimist when it comes to gas prices...just to ease my mind, dont want to be let down) so might as well pay the price...

Originally Posted by Steve Y

Yeah, i'm not into the retro look. I was too young to grow up through the '60s. I prefer the modern, sleek look more like the LS1s and my car.