mustang gt's whats the real deal
10-30-2003, 05:44 PM
#3
mid 6 second 0-60, low 14 second quarter ... with a decent driver. Some may be able to squeeze alittle more, while some will do much worse, as AshF said. All you have to know is that an unmodded one poses bsaically the same threat as a 3.5L Altima ....
10-30-2003, 05:51 PM
#5
TECH Senior Member
A kid that's friends with my best friend Tom (he drives a 98 GT) has an 02 GT, and he ran a 13.92 (not sure what MPH) with CAI, ud pulleys, full exhaust (headers, x-pipe, catback), 3.73 gears, and it's a 5 speed. And this kid isn't a bad driver at all- the car just didn't respond to the mods well at all.
10-30-2003, 07:00 PM
#6
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A GT running 13.8 stock? Doesn't that seem a little quick even with an awesome driver? I mean isn't that what a stock fbody will run about? Well, whatever just wondering.
10-30-2003, 07:45 PM
#7
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 10,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is what a stock A4 f-bod would run in a high altitude. down hear in houston they would perform better. i have seen some 14.0's but nothing faster then that from GT's. that is basic to no mods at all. too bad they sound damn good with exhaust though!!
Trending Topics
10-30-2003, 08:24 PM
#9
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 1,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by seabassz28
I can't get an honest answer on 0-60 or legit 1/4 times. Every mustang guy i ask gives me the mach 1 times.
10-30-2003, 11:26 PM
#10
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of my club's(Scorpion Racing) members have 2000 Mustang Gts(both stick)and one of them had mufflers only and ran a best of 13.8x @ 100mph. The other had a couple bolt-ons and ran a best of 13.9 @ 99mph. They both typically run 14.0-14.1 @ 99-100mph. They both also ran NX nitrous kits now and run mid 12s @ 105-109mph.
You can expect a 5.0 stock to run low 14s to high 15s depending on driver. Most stock fow body 5.0s stick run mid to high 14s, but there have been some that run low 13s too. I used to know a guy that had a 1989 5.0 LX notchback with no power accessories at all and NO weight removable except spare tire and jack. His car was a 5 speed with like 75k miles. He ran it on BFG drag radials and his best ET was 13.3 @ 97mph. He would launch that thing at 5000rpm and knock out a 1.8x 60ft. He ran consitant 13.50s @ 95ish mph. Newer 5.0s...1994-1995s seem to be weaker then the fox bodies though. The quickest 94-95 5.0 stock 5 speed I have ever seen was a 14.3 @ 95mph. WEAK!!! The slowest I have ever seen was 15.7 @ 90mph, and that wasn't screwing off either; that was running the car as hard as possible on stock tires.
You can expect a 5.0 stock to run low 14s to high 15s depending on driver. Most stock fow body 5.0s stick run mid to high 14s, but there have been some that run low 13s too. I used to know a guy that had a 1989 5.0 LX notchback with no power accessories at all and NO weight removable except spare tire and jack. His car was a 5 speed with like 75k miles. He ran it on BFG drag radials and his best ET was 13.3 @ 97mph. He would launch that thing at 5000rpm and knock out a 1.8x 60ft. He ran consitant 13.50s @ 95ish mph. Newer 5.0s...1994-1995s seem to be weaker then the fox bodies though. The quickest 94-95 5.0 stock 5 speed I have ever seen was a 14.3 @ 95mph. WEAK!!! The slowest I have ever seen was 15.7 @ 90mph, and that wasn't screwing off either; that was running the car as hard as possible on stock tires.
Last edited by 14u2nv; 10-30-2003 at 11:34 PM.
10-31-2003, 12:20 AM
#11
STF Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a "stock 5.0" is a horribly varible thing. the slowest (the 94s and 95s with automatics) ran high 14s or low 15s. the quickest (87 & 88 LX fox-bodies with damn near everything factory deleted, with slicks and a good driver) ran absurdly low. i'm talking high 12s low. don't ask me how, i have no clue.
my car, a 1994 GT A4 with 3.23:1 factory gear option, with 71k on the odometer and about 500lbs of humans in the car, ran a 7.1 second 0-60 measured by imprecise methods. the car ran a best (or rather, i ran a best as i am a so-so driver) of 15.2 @ 91mph. with the only mod at the time being CAI. when i got cat-back, ignition, 4.10:1 gears, and tuning chip, i knocked out a 14.8 @ 93mph. yeah, i suck.
my car, a 1994 GT A4 with 3.23:1 factory gear option, with 71k on the odometer and about 500lbs of humans in the car, ran a 7.1 second 0-60 measured by imprecise methods. the car ran a best (or rather, i ran a best as i am a so-so driver) of 15.2 @ 91mph. with the only mod at the time being CAI. when i got cat-back, ignition, 4.10:1 gears, and tuning chip, i knocked out a 14.8 @ 93mph. yeah, i suck.
10-31-2003, 09:52 AM
#12
Launching!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My father who has been racing cars for 20+ years ran a 13.7x at 101 mph in a bone stock 00 GT. Now this is powershifting like crazy and getting a 1.9x 60ft time.
My best run in his car, which is about what they run on average, is a 14.2x at 99.xxmph.
My best run in his car, which is about what they run on average, is a 14.2x at 99.xxmph.
10-31-2003, 10:38 AM
#13
!LS1 11 Second Club
The ones I've run against at the track always post low 14's (confirmed on my timeslips). I think 6cyl Nissans, as Phantom said, are their direct competition. I usually kill both the stangs and the nissans by the same margins.
10-31-2003, 11:12 AM
#14
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1998 Mustang GT: (5-Speed)
0-30 mph 2.10 s
0-40 mph 3.60 s
0-50 mph 4.80 s
0-60 mph 6.20 s
0-70 mph 8.50 s
0-80 mph 10.70 s
0-90 mph 13.90 s
0-100 mph 17.10 s
100 ft 3.10 s
500 ft 8.20 s
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 15.00 s @ 93.7 mph
Nissan 300zxs (TT) at least, will sure beat them and specially on the highway.
a 3000gt vr-4 is closer to their competition, but on the highway they probably will pull stock for stock.
1994 vr-4 (i believe something like a '96+ is faster)
0-30 mph 1.55 s
0-40 mph 2.35 s
0-50 mph 4.18 s
0-60 mph 5.46 s
0-70 mph 7.02 s
0-80 mph 9.77 s
0-90 mph 12.00 s
0-100 mph 14.60 s
0-110 mph 18.93 s
0-120 mph 23.20 s
0-130 mph 28.49 s
0-140 mph 36.43 s
0-150 mph 54.42 s
100 ft 2.63 s @ 41.81 mph
500 ft 7.47 s @ 70.98 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 8.97 s @ 76.15 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.10 s @ 98.97 mph
0-30 mph 2.10 s
0-40 mph 3.60 s
0-50 mph 4.80 s
0-60 mph 6.20 s
0-70 mph 8.50 s
0-80 mph 10.70 s
0-90 mph 13.90 s
0-100 mph 17.10 s
100 ft 3.10 s
500 ft 8.20 s
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 15.00 s @ 93.7 mph
Nissan 300zxs (TT) at least, will sure beat them and specially on the highway.
a 3000gt vr-4 is closer to their competition, but on the highway they probably will pull stock for stock.
1994 vr-4 (i believe something like a '96+ is faster)
0-30 mph 1.55 s
0-40 mph 2.35 s
0-50 mph 4.18 s
0-60 mph 5.46 s
0-70 mph 7.02 s
0-80 mph 9.77 s
0-90 mph 12.00 s
0-100 mph 14.60 s
0-110 mph 18.93 s
0-120 mph 23.20 s
0-130 mph 28.49 s
0-140 mph 36.43 s
0-150 mph 54.42 s
100 ft 2.63 s @ 41.81 mph
500 ft 7.47 s @ 70.98 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 8.97 s @ 76.15 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.10 s @ 98.97 mph
11-03-2003, 01:09 PM
#19
On The Tree
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raceland, Louisiana
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i like how all stang guys posted 13.8's and nonstang people have them 14.2's and up.
Its the same for all cars though I see it all the time. Its pretty funny. THE GREAT STOCK DEBATE....
Its the same for all cars though I see it all the time. Its pretty funny. THE GREAT STOCK DEBATE....