No, i wish it was mine but due to family life "KIDS" i had to change my DD to something with multiple seating space.

 

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...

 

I've read that SS vs Cobra article, I liked it. Probably lack of oxygen in my brain when I was typing then. Did you see Motortrend with the 2010 test drive? A sad 13.7 they pulled. They are horrible drivers, which is probably why that FireHawk was pulled with a bad time. Where do they test at? Colorado? lol

 

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

 

Ah I wasn't logged in what I posted so I just lost a half of page of links. >.>

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.

 

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 .

 

Blue Oval that 93 Z28 time is terrible lol. Its worse then 99-04 GT's with less hp and torq.

 

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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

They run rich from the factory, real rich. And there is this "eco friendly" emission paper right after the MAS sensor. Taking it off alone is worth 5 rwhp reported lol. We all know Ford is conservative and the 2009 to 2010 model change is 300 to 315 hp and 320 torq is gonna be 325. This was done by racing the rev limit 250 rpm's and Ford racing intake. So I'm sure the 05 with a "who cares about warrenty" kinda tune can jump.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

The SS still takes it on power/torque to weight ratio.
You know the Mustang is lighter because its an overall smaller car with smaller wheels, and brakes etc. It all adds up.

 

Hey Casey, no offense man....but you need to cut back on the propaganda. If you're gonna go out on a limb with shaky/hollow observations and facts everytime someone on this website says something negative about the Mustang.....you're gonna roll over from exhaustion after a few hours.

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.