Gloveperson

iTrader: (9)

Do you believe it or not. You feel that on stock tires you can get better than a 1.9. You are probably wrong. Therefore you are calling BS.

I ran a 13.3 stock. It can run better.

They had been there all night. Read the whole story about it at www.ls1gto.com. He had about 10 passes that night. 14.04 was his best as the anouncer says. Deal with it.

That's funny because if you knew Motor Trend's history, they have been and if you actually look at some of their times, you know they are BS.

Motorweek used ford's times btw.

Try about .7-1 second. The civic has a great aftermarket, too. You can put all the bolt-ons you want and it still won't be fast. Same as a SOHC ford engine. Just took at its heads. They suck.

You have no proof of it being faster than that and I have lots.

-Todd

MSI

So are you honestly telling me that a Mustang doesn't pick up jack from bolt-ons? If so you are being either completely thick-headed or just ignorant period. Gears, exhaust, underdrive pulleys, cai....none of that helps at all, huh. Whatever dude, keep living your lie. I guess the dyno has lied all these years.
MM&FF got a Camaro SS to go 12.96 in the quarter...this is a Mustang mag, mind you. I've seen other F-body LS1's barely get into the 13's. Does this mean every LS1 goes 12.96 or high 13's stock? NO! The new Stang JUST CAME OUT and you and I BOTH in all fairness need to look at more than just what MT did and what your two vids showed....agreed?

Gloveperson

iTrader: (9)

That is OBVIOUSLY what I said it. You read my words PERFECTLY. I aplaud you for being such a politician.

Very true but please answer this, what 60 footer time do you think this car should be getting stock? The 12.96 was with a 2.0 60 footer from MMFF (they actually got 2 LS1's into the 12's). Motor trend got a 13.8 for my car and a 13.9 for a WRX. Do the math, they are biased and retarded. Most mags are. The car..based on power..weight..gearing and tires is a high 13 second car. The car is low on power and high on gearing which makes it very good 0-60 and terrible after that; just like the Mach 1.

-Todd

MSI

Try about .7-1 second. The civic has a great aftermarket, too. You can put all the bolt-ons you want and it still won't be fast. Same as a SOHC ford engine. Just took at its heads. They suck.

Read what you posted above. "....same as a sohc ford engine. just look at its heads. they suck." O.k., whatever. How you mean something other than what you said is beyond me, it is there in black and white. Anyhow, have you personally pulled off a 3-valve sohc ford head and took a good look, if so please fill me in.

97M6Formula

iTrader: (6)

Honestly I think mustang guys (not all) are the soarest losers out of the whole crowd when someone posts a fast car that isnt a mustang here we still say damn that thing is fast. But if the same was posted over at a mustang board they'd be like oh thats fake it must have a 5.0 or a 4.6 in it to be that fast Now if we post a mustang that has gotten beaten even if its a video of a Lambo Murcielago beating a 95 GT 5.0 they will still say OMG it was the driver he should have beat that lambo cuz mustangs are the fastest POS' on the planet....BTW 0-60 soesnt mean **** you can gear anything to hit 60 fast... I think the best is 0-100-0 now thats a test

MSI

I have no clue how good of a 60-foot it could do. I have owned three stangs and my wife and I are interested in the 05 GT or 06 Cobra and if we get one I'll let you know. Ford did put a lot of dough and time into the rear. Time will tell.

MSI

Wow. That sure is interesting because as soon as they heard 13.6 over here in the 1/4....whoa! They cheated!
Pot:kettle:black

Gloveperson

iTrader: (9)

Look at the flow bench rating............................................ ....

-Todd

bbqz28

iTrader: (4)

Stangs have always baffled me. When MT tested the 99 GT it ran 13.7-13.8 stock.
Fast forward to today. I have a friend with an 01 GT that has a host of mods and he can't even get it in the 13's. I've never been able to figure that one out

Meanwhile, I ran a 13.6 in my bone stock 99Z a few months ago and have barely even started modding mine and it's already down to the 13.4's.

btw, I ran those times at the same track as the 2 05's in question.

MSI

Give me a link to the #'s because I can't find one. Yes the cylinder head flow #'s are extremely important. A set of 3.90's or 4.10's will do wonders and your basics like U/D pullies, long-tubes, timing adjuster, etc. will help out considerably as well, as far as true bolt-ons go.

Gloveperson

iTrader: (9)

I read about them at Stangnet.

What is mainly wrong with the engine design is the basics of SOHC though.

But from my understanding of this car (and by looking at its dyno), it lacks top-end power. Long Tube headers will help, but not as much as a better intake system (larger TB, better intake manifold etc.)

BTW, I would just like to apologize if I offended you any. I was a "little" mad .

-Todd

MSI

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index....ic=6235&st=120

o.k., o.k., I know it is from Motor Trend but if you look at the dyno graph they have, its peak hp is at 5750 rpm (267 hp I think it was). (Just scroll on down the page towards the bottom for the graph). Even at the end of the graph at 6250 rpm it was still above 260 hp at the wheels and it wasn't really dropping off. Torque did drop off, which I would expect, but according to their dyno graph it isn't really running out of steam on the top end. I think that the heads will support some pretty good hp (especially un-naturally aspirated!), and hopefully the basic mods will do some good.

Oh, and I apologize myself. Nothing wrong with defending the car you love. Peace out.

97M6Formula

iTrader: (6)

so basically that means at that weight with that hp it will run high 13s low 14s so I dont understand how it was in your defense to post that

John02SS

iTrader: (47)

Disappointed in the GT. I had a 00' GT and stock it went a little faster than that one. Added all the boltons and it still was limp up top. Just wouldn't pull 3rd gear. I went back to my roots and bought my 3rd Camaro! I'm trying to get the wife to get a GTO though!

MSI

I'm not posting ANYTHING in my defense. I posted that in response to a comment saying the cylinder heads don't flow up top. The car dropped off no more than 3-4 hp from its peak @ 5750 rpm up to redline @ 6250. If the heads didn't flow relatively good up top that peak hp would be at a much lower rpm and would drop like a rock thereafter, generally speaking. And as the guy that just posted above me saying his '00 GT was faster than the one in the vid, that is just more proof of my point not to look at that video or the MT article as the definitive time for an '05 GT. If it is no faster than a high 13/low 14, oh well, Mustang guys know what they have to work with. It just really blew my mind that almost everyone here didn't believe the '05 GT didn't turn a 13.6 in the 1/4 with MT. If it didn't I hope MT gets busted for it and I'll never look at their mag again. That is all.

D Rock

iTrader: (7)

Seems like a troll to me. I personally would rather buy a used car for half the price that runs 13s than pay twice as much to run 14s. 14s, lol

Gloveperson

iTrader: (9)

MSI..I hate to point out to you..but 13.6@99 mph is no faster than an 04. And it weights around 300 lbs more than an 04.

-Todd

PendragonZ

Stop this bickering please. Opinions are opinions, and everyone has them. You can like the mustang, or you can dislike it. Don't judge all mustang owners by the way you may have seen some act. Conversely, don't judge all LS1 owners by the way some act. I personally would like to own an 05 stang or 06 cobra - I think they look sweet.

Ude-Lose

There will only be one Judge

WECIV

Ude, sweet pic!!!