2010 mustang
On The Tree
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: McDonough, Ga, U.S.A.
Blue oval
We were talking 1/4 mile performance...and the 2010 gt still wont take an ls1 f-bod stock for stock. Interior, visibility, comfort whatever is all an opinion...and it isnt personally what I look for in a sports car.
I like a car that is fast off the showroom and cheap/easy to modify that responds well to mods. therefore IMO the ls1 f-bod is the best thing since the mustang 5.0.
BTW is that your car in your sig by your SN? Looks good. A nice clean fox body is always nice. I really like the 93 cobra spoiler on them.
We were talking 1/4 mile performance...and the 2010 gt still wont take an ls1 f-bod stock for stock. Interior, visibility, comfort whatever is all an opinion...and it isnt personally what I look for in a sports car.
I like a car that is fast off the showroom and cheap/easy to modify that responds well to mods. therefore IMO the ls1 f-bod is the best thing since the mustang 5.0.
BTW is that your car in your sig by your SN? Looks good. A nice clean fox body is always nice. I really like the 93 cobra spoiler on them.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,798
Likes: 16
From: St.Charles MO
13.6 qtr, yes I know they probably can run a hell of alot faster. I'm sure they are high 12's cars. But my point is MT pulled a 13.1 with the 05 GT auto. Sure different weather, track etc. Just stop treating ur overall car like GOD just cause the engines lightier and smaller is diameter.
Thats right blue oval mag test can't drive Cause here' proof with the 99 325 hp Firehawk pulling a mid 13 while a 300 hp and 25 less torq 05 GT that weighs maybe 50 lbs more pulled a 13.1.
Why not compare the best times to the best times?
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm
Or at least use an average time:
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Cobra...SS_Article.htm
GM better engine yea, Ford better everything else? Yes.
TECH Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Western Kentucky
The new GT is right at 3500lbs, the same weight as an average LS1 Fbody (non-stripper).
Im not sure who this is targeted at, but a better engine is a better engine regardless of what car its in. And if this is targeted at me, I'd like to know where you got the idea that I'm treating my car like a "god" because I believe its FAR from it, it has many flaws.
I'm not quite sure what your point is, you took two different magazine numbers, one of which is the best I've seen (the mustangs) and the other is one of the worst (the FireHawk's).
Why not compare the best times to the best times?
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm
Or at least use an average time:
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Cobra...SS_Article.htm
Thats a pretty bold statement considering you are just comparing 1/4 mile times from two cars on a different day at a different track...
Im not sure who this is targeted at, but a better engine is a better engine regardless of what car its in. And if this is targeted at me, I'd like to know where you got the idea that I'm treating my car like a "god" because I believe its FAR from it, it has many flaws.
I'm not quite sure what your point is, you took two different magazine numbers, one of which is the best I've seen (the mustangs) and the other is one of the worst (the FireHawk's).
Why not compare the best times to the best times?
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm
Or at least use an average time:
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Cobra...SS_Article.htm
Thats a pretty bold statement considering you are just comparing 1/4 mile times from two cars on a different day at a different track...
Im still waiting for the link to the 13.1 in a stock automatic 3500lb 250-260whp car....you got a link for me caseypayne?
the only motortrend 05 gt auto test I could find was a 13.6 at 99
The fastest published time I have ever seen for an 05+ gt was the manual at 13.5 @ 103
the only motortrend 05 gt auto test I could find was a 13.6 at 99
The fastest published time I have ever seen for an 05+ gt was the manual at 13.5 @ 103
TECH Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Western Kentucky
Im still waiting for the link to the 13.1 in a stock automatic 3500lb 250-260whp car....you got a link for me caseypayne?
the only motortrend 05 gt auto test I could find was a 13.6 at 99
The fastest published time I have ever seen for an 05+ gt was the manual at 13.5 @ 103
the only motortrend 05 gt auto test I could find was a 13.6 at 99
The fastest published time I have ever seen for an 05+ gt was the manual at 13.5 @ 103
I basicly saw 13.5's all day. I could have SWORE I saw someone pull a 13.1 in an automatic 2005 GT. Just can't remember who did the review.
Found this though in my searches.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...on+id-265.html
this though in my searches.
On The Tree
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: McDonough, Ga, U.S.A.
http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Cobra...SS_Article.htm I actually have this issue somewhere in the garage but anyway, did everyone look at the dyno numbers for the Camaro SS / SVT Cobra ??!! They mentioned that the dyno was conservative but damn the Cobra needing a fix in '99 was close to those numbers. The SS was pulling less than stellar numbers.Looking at 0-60 mph/ 1/4 mile times are weak for a lot of cars. The '93 Z28 @ 275bhp @5000 rpm / 325 lb-ft @2400 rpm was tested with times of 6.2 sec/ 14.7@96.9 respectively. The same year in Car and Driver testing results are as follows : 5.5 sec / 14.1@101mph. Using this as a example a couple of years later in Nov.'97 ,Road &Track tested the '98 Z28 @ 305bhp@5200rpm/ 335 lb-ft@4000rpm ran 5.4 sec/13.9sec@102.5mph. the SVT Cobra@305bhp @5800 rpm / 300 lb-ft @4800 rpm ran 5.7 sec/ 14.2 sec @99.5 mph. People on here owning all these vehicles probably have run better times . On The Tree
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: McDonough, Ga, U.S.A.
I read in either Motor Trend / Car & Driver or Road & Track that they don't power shift and throttle lift during manual trans. testing. This would slow times down considerately, and not reflect times by most enthusiast. LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Staging Lane
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, Arizona
[QUOTE=caseypayne69;10668902]Blue Oval that 93 Z28 time is terrible lol. Its worse then 99-04 GT's with less hp and torq.[/QUOTE.
You think that's a bad time I was at the track earlier this year and raced brand new mustang gt auto. And it was running mid 14s all day. So that 93 can still hang with that mustang that's really patethic if you ask me. I have a video I just have to upload it when I get home for proof.
You think that's a bad time I was at the track earlier this year and raced brand new mustang gt auto. And it was running mid 14s all day. So that 93 can still hang with that mustang that's really patethic if you ask me. I have a video I just have to upload it when I get home for proof.
TECH Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Western Kentucky
[QUOTE=187fl;10672358] When someone is slower then published times like Motortrend, its just sad. Motortrend pulled a 13.8 in a convertible 05 GT. so we know an auto GT is faster. I still can't find the auto that pulled 13.1 but im lookin.
Must have been a Mach 1, all I could find was this 2005 Automatic that pulled a 13.6
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._gt/index.html
Blue Oval that 93 Z28 time is terrible lol. Its worse then 99-04 GT's with less hp and torq.[/QUOTE.
You think that's a bad time I was at the track earlier this year and raced brand new mustang gt auto. And it was running mid 14s all day. So that 93 can still hang with that mustang that's really patethic if you ask me. I have a video I just have to upload it when I get home for proof.
You think that's a bad time I was at the track earlier this year and raced brand new mustang gt auto. And it was running mid 14s all day. So that 93 can still hang with that mustang that's really patethic if you ask me. I have a video I just have to upload it when I get home for proof.
Must have been a Mach 1, all I could find was this 2005 Automatic that pulled a 13.6
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._gt/index.html
Last edited by caseypayne69; Dec 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM.
Staging Lane
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, Arizona
For beign a 93 it's not a great time but it's not terrible either. So don't knock on a old camaro for beign slow. There's plenty of mustangs and other camaros running times slower then published just like there's faster times acheived.
On The Tree
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: McDonough, Ga, U.S.A.
All anyone has to do is watch Pass time on "SPEED" . This show will prove without a doubt that anyone with a bad launch,shift technique, poor traction, can run a horrible time no matter what you drive.
Staging Lane
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, Arizona
I like that show they got some good rides on there. But I like seeing the newbies not knowing how to line up or forgeting to burn out and just spinnning like crazy of the line. Or the one guy who had like 30 psi or something crazy like that on a stock evo and the guy from Texas chassis on there was like " WTF I don't think that car can handle that kind of boost". The guys evo then proceded to blow up on the burn out. It was halarious!
I dont think it is possible for a showroom stock 05 gt auto to run a 13.1. The power to weight etc etc just doesnt add up.
Now if it was tuned with perfect weather and altitude...it could happen. Sometimes cars get tested that have been tuned from the manufacturer before the test, or someone will omit that little detail when talking about a run...lol.
do the new gt's pick up a decent amount of power with a tune? I thought I read an article where they picked up about 20 to the wheels with a tune on a stock car.
Now if it was tuned with perfect weather and altitude...it could happen. Sometimes cars get tested that have been tuned from the manufacturer before the test, or someone will omit that little detail when talking about a run...lol.
do the new gt's pick up a decent amount of power with a tune? I thought I read an article where they picked up about 20 to the wheels with a tune on a stock car.
TECH Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Western Kentucky
I dont think it is possible for a showroom stock 05 gt auto to run a 13.1. The power to weight etc etc just doesnt add up.
Now if it was tuned with perfect weather and altitude...it could happen. Sometimes cars get tested that have been tuned from the manufacturer before the test, or someone will omit that little detail when talking about a run...lol.
do the new gt's pick up a decent amount of power with a tune? I thought I read an article where they picked up about 20 to the wheels with a tune on a stock car.
Now if it was tuned with perfect weather and altitude...it could happen. Sometimes cars get tested that have been tuned from the manufacturer before the test, or someone will omit that little detail when talking about a run...lol.
do the new gt's pick up a decent amount of power with a tune? I thought I read an article where they picked up about 20 to the wheels with a tune on a stock car.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana, USA
I feel like I'm repeating myself here (cuz I am)...you guys really need to let one of the 2010 Mustang threads die.
No one has run a 13.1 in a bone stock S197 GT......auto or manual. Quickest stock time I've personally seen was a 13.4 out of a manual, but I've heard of a couple of freak times as low as 13.3 (mine shaft air and powershiftin like a ****). Stock record on the new Bullitt was a 13.2....which is respectable, and probably indicative of what the 2010 GT's should be capable of.
And bone stock, the auto GT's are still a couple tenths slower than the manuals. Modded is a different story.
No one has run a 13.1 in a bone stock S197 GT......auto or manual. Quickest stock time I've personally seen was a 13.4 out of a manual, but I've heard of a couple of freak times as low as 13.3 (mine shaft air and powershiftin like a ****). Stock record on the new Bullitt was a 13.2....which is respectable, and probably indicative of what the 2010 GT's should be capable of.
And bone stock, the auto GT's are still a couple tenths slower than the manuals. Modded is a different story.
i saw the ratings of new mustangs in the feb 09 edition of hot rod. im so disappointed with ford. i would never buy one but come on ford step it up. if chevy puts 420 horses in 30000 dollar car using pushrods. surely ford could do better with a overhead cam design
TECH Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Western Kentucky
Hey Buell in 2010 the GT will weigh 8 lbs more then the 09 model. Weighing in around 3550 give or take. The Camaro which is supposed to have this Allah inspired light LS engine weighs in at 3800 to 3900. Explain that one. Ford must be doing something right.
Last edited by caseypayne69; Dec 17, 2008 at 09:33 AM.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,798
Likes: 16
From: St.Charles MO
You know the Mustang is lighter because its an overall smaller car with smaller wheels, and brakes etc. It all adds up.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana, USA
Nothing wrong with standing up for the Stang where it's due, but you have to learn to let some negative responses go from time to time. It IS a GM forum, afterall.
