Ford's 5.0 is Back
#141
TECH Enthusiast
ok..
the 1996 cobra
2003-2004 cobra
2007+ gt500
super snake
ford is the one who decided to leave the 5.4 4v in aussie land. (385hp)
the discussion is the 2011 gt.
the 1996 cobra
2003-2004 cobra
2007+ gt500
super snake
ford is the one who decided to leave the 5.4 4v in aussie land. (385hp)
the discussion is the 2011 gt.
#142
TECH Enthusiast
Exactly when was price in the equation for 6cyl's beating gts. Excuses?? I've beaten a GT in an altima 3.5se
All that should, would crap is bogus. Fbody has been dead since 02 and the GT is just now in 2011 getting enough power to outrun an 98-02 f bodys. Now the camaro is back and spanking the GT again. Guess they realize maybe its time we have some competition. I feel sorry for guys who bought a 2010 GT to realize the 2011 base mustang is a few horses behind in power. I'd Barf then sell that Ford quick.
All that should, would crap is bogus. Fbody has been dead since 02 and the GT is just now in 2011 getting enough power to outrun an 98-02 f bodys. Now the camaro is back and spanking the GT again. Guess they realize maybe its time we have some competition. I feel sorry for guys who bought a 2010 GT to realize the 2011 base mustang is a few horses behind in power. I'd Barf then sell that Ford quick.
the coyote v8 design started 2 years ago. probably to counter the srt-8's (challenger in particular) not the camaro which didnt exist.
with a 62ish hp, 30-40 lb/ft advantage, outrun is an understatement.
my bet is the v6 2011 is FASTER than a 2010 GT. less weight.
#143
#145
i killed countless 3.5 altimas with my automatic 96 gt. (k&n,x-pipe,fpr)
the coyote v8 design started 2 years ago. probably to counter the srt-8's (challenger in particular) not the camaro which didnt exist.
with a 62ish hp, 30-40 lb/ft advantage, outrun is an understatement.
my bet is the v6 2011 is FASTER than a 2010 GT. less weight.
the coyote v8 design started 2 years ago. probably to counter the srt-8's (challenger in particular) not the camaro which didnt exist.
with a 62ish hp, 30-40 lb/ft advantage, outrun is an understatement.
my bet is the v6 2011 is FASTER than a 2010 GT. less weight.
#146
All that should, would crap is bogus. Fbody has been dead since 02 and the GT is just now in 2011 getting enough power to outrun an 98-02 f bodys. Now the camaro is back and spanking the GT again.
#148
Originally Posted by drazga
i ran a 13.82/13.89/13.89/13.9/13.99 in my bone stock 04 gt 5 speed. and im pretty sure drgnracing did a 13.7 so either way its been proven. u could run a pass like that infront of some of those guys on LS1tech and they wouldnt believe it. sometimes i think theyre bigger nutswingers than the import guys.
#150
I even seen it listed as 5.4 in a couple of places. NEVER 6.1. Whoever posted a 6.1 on the internet is full of fail.
#152
Even if it was slightly modded, it was probably slower than a 99-04 GT you claim to beat. I haven't had a 3.5 Altima even come close to killing me. It has 20 less HP (approximately some are 240 some are 270 depending on the year) wrong wheel drive, and is heavier than a 99-04 GT. If you beat one, you beat the driver.
#153
Even with an extra 10hp at the crank, it weighs more than a GT, and is front wheel drive, AND it has less torque. If it was a 95-98 auto, I could see you easily taking one of those. But not a 99-04 GT with a proper driver.
#154
#156
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Navarre, Florida
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There ya go, taking less then .1% of the 99-04 GTs that broke into the 13s and using it as a standard? I'd like to see some proof of your time anyway. Bone stock? Stock tires, stock filter?
#157
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.modernracer.com/mustanggt.html
http://www.jbcarpages.com/ford/mustang/2004/specs/
looks like with furthur research, its all about the car. im sure a manual can do it fster, but the autos seem pretty slow
#158
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...tang_gt_page_3
The autos were for sure slow.
There was some unhappiness with the action of the four-speed automatic transmission — "Feels confused," said one tester, "jerky upshifts, delayed downshifts" — : 6.3 seconds to 60, 15.1 seconds at 93 mph in the quarter. They're best in this test.
The autos were for sure slow.
There was some unhappiness with the action of the four-speed automatic transmission — "Feels confused," said one tester, "jerky upshifts, delayed downshifts" — : 6.3 seconds to 60, 15.1 seconds at 93 mph in the quarter. They're best in this test.
#159
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I bought my '01 GT, I was THIS close to getting an '06 Altima SE-R. I have no doubt that it could pull a 99-04 GT from a roll, and it would be damn close in the 1/4 (advantage to GT). That was a very sick car
#160
Agreed. It's not some made up fairy tale that the 3.5 altima can beat a 99-04 gt and not because of a bad mustang driver*
BTW I loved the wheels on the SE-R.
BTW I loved the wheels on the SE-R.
Last edited by TransFan; 01-18-2010 at 03:37 PM.